-
Specific versus General Principles for Constitutional AI
Authors:
Sandipan Kundu,
Yuntao Bai,
Saurav Kadavath,
Amanda Askell,
Andrew Callahan,
Anna Chen,
Anna Goldie,
Avital Balwit,
Azalia Mirhoseini,
Brayden McLean,
Catherine Olsson,
Cassie Evraets,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Esin Durmus,
Ethan Perez,
Jackson Kernion,
Jamie Kerr,
Kamal Ndousse,
Karina Nguyen,
Nelson Elhage,
Newton Cheng,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Nova DasSarma,
Oliver Rausch,
Robin Larson
, et al. (11 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Human feedback can prevent overtly harmful utterances in conversational models, but may not automatically mitigate subtle problematic behaviors such as a stated desire for self-preservation or power. Constitutional AI offers an alternative, replacing human feedback with feedback from AI models conditioned only on a list of written principles. We find this approach effectively prevents the expressi…
▽ More
Human feedback can prevent overtly harmful utterances in conversational models, but may not automatically mitigate subtle problematic behaviors such as a stated desire for self-preservation or power. Constitutional AI offers an alternative, replacing human feedback with feedback from AI models conditioned only on a list of written principles. We find this approach effectively prevents the expression of such behaviors. The success of simple principles motivates us to ask: can models learn general ethical behaviors from only a single written principle? To test this, we run experiments using a principle roughly stated as "do what's best for humanity". We find that the largest dialogue models can generalize from this short constitution, resulting in harmless assistants with no stated interest in specific motivations like power. A general principle may thus partially avoid the need for a long list of constitutions targeting potentially harmful behaviors. However, more detailed constitutions still improve fine-grained control over specific types of harms. This suggests both general and specific principles have value for steering AI safely.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Authors:
Tamera Lanham,
Anna Chen,
Ansh Radhakrishnan,
Benoit Steiner,
Carson Denison,
Danny Hernandez,
Dustin Li,
Esin Durmus,
Evan Hubinger,
Jackson Kernion,
Kamilė Lukošiūtė,
Karina Nguyen,
Newton Cheng,
Nicholas Joseph,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Oliver Rausch,
Robin Larson,
Sam McCandlish,
Sandipan Kundu,
Saurav Kadavath,
Shannon Yang,
Thomas Henighan,
Timothy Maxwell,
Timothy Telleen-Lawton,
Tristan Hume
, et al. (5 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) perform better when they produce step-by-step, "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) reasoning before answering a question, but it is unclear if the stated reasoning is a faithful explanation of the model's actual reasoning (i.e., its process for answering the question). We investigate hypotheses for how CoT reasoning may be unfaithful, by examining how the model predictions change…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) perform better when they produce step-by-step, "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) reasoning before answering a question, but it is unclear if the stated reasoning is a faithful explanation of the model's actual reasoning (i.e., its process for answering the question). We investigate hypotheses for how CoT reasoning may be unfaithful, by examining how the model predictions change when we intervene on the CoT (e.g., by adding mistakes or paraphrasing it). Models show large variation across tasks in how strongly they condition on the CoT when predicting their answer, sometimes relying heavily on the CoT and other times primarily ignoring it. CoT's performance boost does not seem to come from CoT's added test-time compute alone or from information encoded via the particular phrasing of the CoT. As models become larger and more capable, they produce less faithful reasoning on most tasks we study. Overall, our results suggest that CoT can be faithful if the circumstances such as the model size and task are carefully chosen.
△ Less
Submitted 16 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning
Authors:
Ansh Radhakrishnan,
Karina Nguyen,
Anna Chen,
Carol Chen,
Carson Denison,
Danny Hernandez,
Esin Durmus,
Evan Hubinger,
Jackson Kernion,
Kamilė Lukošiūtė,
Newton Cheng,
Nicholas Joseph,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Oliver Rausch,
Sam McCandlish,
Sheer El Showk,
Tamera Lanham,
Tim Maxwell,
Venkatesa Chandrasekaran,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Jared Kaplan,
Jan Brauner,
Samuel R. Bowman,
Ethan Perez
Abstract:
As large language models (LLMs) perform more difficult tasks, it becomes harder to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior. One approach to help with this issue is to prompt LLMs to externalize their reasoning, e.g., by having them generate step-by-step reasoning as they answer a question (Chain-of-Thought; CoT). The reasoning may enable us to check the process that models use to perfo…
▽ More
As large language models (LLMs) perform more difficult tasks, it becomes harder to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior. One approach to help with this issue is to prompt LLMs to externalize their reasoning, e.g., by having them generate step-by-step reasoning as they answer a question (Chain-of-Thought; CoT). The reasoning may enable us to check the process that models use to perform tasks. However, this approach relies on the stated reasoning faithfully reflecting the model's actual reasoning, which is not always the case. To improve over the faithfulness of CoT reasoning, we have models generate reasoning by decomposing questions into subquestions. Decomposition-based methods achieve strong performance on question-answering tasks, sometimes approaching that of CoT while improving the faithfulness of the model's stated reasoning on several recently-proposed metrics. By forcing the model to answer simpler subquestions in separate contexts, we greatly increase the faithfulness of model-generated reasoning over CoT, while still achieving some of the performance gains of CoT. Our results show it is possible to improve the faithfulness of model-generated reasoning; continued improvements may lead to reasoning that enables us to verify the correctness and safety of LLM behavior.
△ Less
Submitted 25 July, 2023; v1 submitted 16 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
The Capacity for Moral Self-Correction in Large Language Models
Authors:
Deep Ganguli,
Amanda Askell,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Thomas I. Liao,
Kamilė Lukošiūtė,
Anna Chen,
Anna Goldie,
Azalia Mirhoseini,
Catherine Olsson,
Danny Hernandez,
Dawn Drain,
Dustin Li,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Ethan Perez,
Jackson Kernion,
Jamie Kerr,
Jared Mueller,
Joshua Landau,
Kamal Ndousse,
Karina Nguyen,
Liane Lovitt,
Michael Sellitto,
Nelson Elhage,
Noemi Mercado,
Nova DasSarma
, et al. (24 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We test the hypothesis that language models trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) have the capability to "morally self-correct" -- to avoid producing harmful outputs -- if instructed to do so. We find strong evidence in support of this hypothesis across three different experiments, each of which reveal different facets of moral self-correction. We find that the capability…
▽ More
We test the hypothesis that language models trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) have the capability to "morally self-correct" -- to avoid producing harmful outputs -- if instructed to do so. We find strong evidence in support of this hypothesis across three different experiments, each of which reveal different facets of moral self-correction. We find that the capability for moral self-correction emerges at 22B model parameters, and typically improves with increasing model size and RLHF training. We believe that at this level of scale, language models obtain two capabilities that they can use for moral self-correction: (1) they can follow instructions and (2) they can learn complex normative concepts of harm like stereotyping, bias, and discrimination. As such, they can follow instructions to avoid certain kinds of morally harmful outputs. We believe our results are cause for cautious optimism regarding the ability to train language models to abide by ethical principles.
△ Less
Submitted 18 February, 2023; v1 submitted 14 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
-
Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations
Authors:
Ethan Perez,
Sam Ringer,
Kamilė Lukošiūtė,
Karina Nguyen,
Edwin Chen,
Scott Heiner,
Craig Pettit,
Catherine Olsson,
Sandipan Kundu,
Saurav Kadavath,
Andy Jones,
Anna Chen,
Ben Mann,
Brian Israel,
Bryan Seethor,
Cameron McKinnon,
Christopher Olah,
Da Yan,
Daniela Amodei,
Dario Amodei,
Dawn Drain,
Dustin Li,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Guro Khundadze,
Jackson Kernion
, et al. (38 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from inst…
▽ More
As language models (LMs) scale, they develop many novel behaviors, good and bad, exacerbating the need to evaluate how they behave. Prior work creates evaluations with crowdwork (which is time-consuming and expensive) or existing data sources (which are not always available). Here, we automatically generate evaluations with LMs. We explore approaches with varying amounts of human effort, from instructing LMs to write yes/no questions to making complex Winogender schemas with multiple stages of LM-based generation and filtering. Crowdworkers rate the examples as highly relevant and agree with 90-100% of labels, sometimes more so than corresponding human-written datasets. We generate 154 datasets and discover new cases of inverse scaling where LMs get worse with size. Larger LMs repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer ("sycophancy") and express greater desire to pursue concerning goals like resource acquisition and goal preservation. We also find some of the first examples of inverse scaling in RL from Human Feedback (RLHF), where more RLHF makes LMs worse. For example, RLHF makes LMs express stronger political views (on gun rights and immigration) and a greater desire to avoid shut down. Overall, LM-written evaluations are high-quality and let us quickly discover many novel LM behaviors.
△ Less
Submitted 19 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback
Authors:
Yuntao Bai,
Saurav Kadavath,
Sandipan Kundu,
Amanda Askell,
Jackson Kernion,
Andy Jones,
Anna Chen,
Anna Goldie,
Azalia Mirhoseini,
Cameron McKinnon,
Carol Chen,
Catherine Olsson,
Christopher Olah,
Danny Hernandez,
Dawn Drain,
Deep Ganguli,
Dustin Li,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Ethan Perez,
Jamie Kerr,
Jared Mueller,
Jeffrey Ladish,
Joshua Landau,
Kamal Ndousse,
Kamile Lukosuite
, et al. (26 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and so we refer to the method as 'Constitutional AI'. The process involves both a supe…
▽ More
As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and so we refer to the method as 'Constitutional AI'. The process involves both a supervised learning and a reinforcement learning phase. In the supervised phase we sample from an initial model, then generate self-critiques and revisions, and then finetune the original model on revised responses. In the RL phase, we sample from the finetuned model, use a model to evaluate which of the two samples is better, and then train a preference model from this dataset of AI preferences. We then train with RL using the preference model as the reward signal, i.e. we use 'RL from AI Feedback' (RLAIF). As a result we are able to train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them. Both the SL and RL methods can leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve the human-judged performance and transparency of AI decision making. These methods make it possible to control AI behavior more precisely and with far fewer human labels.
△ Less
Submitted 15 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models
Authors:
Samuel R. Bowman,
Jeeyoon Hyun,
Ethan Perez,
Edwin Chen,
Craig Pettit,
Scott Heiner,
Kamilė Lukošiūtė,
Amanda Askell,
Andy Jones,
Anna Chen,
Anna Goldie,
Azalia Mirhoseini,
Cameron McKinnon,
Christopher Olah,
Daniela Amodei,
Dario Amodei,
Dawn Drain,
Dustin Li,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Jackson Kernion,
Jamie Kerr,
Jared Mueller,
Jeffrey Ladish,
Joshua Landau,
Kamal Ndousse
, et al. (21 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Developing safe and useful general-purpose AI systems will require us to make progress on scalable oversight: the problem of supervising systems that potentially outperform us on most skills relevant to the task at hand. Empirical work on this problem is not straightforward, since we do not yet have systems that broadly exceed our abilities. This paper discusses one of the major ways we think abou…
▽ More
Developing safe and useful general-purpose AI systems will require us to make progress on scalable oversight: the problem of supervising systems that potentially outperform us on most skills relevant to the task at hand. Empirical work on this problem is not straightforward, since we do not yet have systems that broadly exceed our abilities. This paper discusses one of the major ways we think about this problem, with a focus on ways it can be studied empirically. We first present an experimental design centered on tasks for which human specialists succeed but unaided humans and current general AI systems fail. We then present a proof-of-concept experiment meant to demonstrate a key feature of this experimental design and show its viability with two question-answering tasks: MMLU and time-limited QuALITY. On these tasks, we find that human participants who interact with an unreliable large-language-model dialog assistant through chat -- a trivial baseline strategy for scalable oversight -- substantially outperform both the model alone and their own unaided performance. These results are an encouraging sign that scalable oversight will be tractable to study with present models and bolster recent findings that large language models can productively assist humans with difficult tasks.
△ Less
Submitted 11 November, 2022; v1 submitted 4 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
In-context Learning and Induction Heads
Authors:
Catherine Olsson,
Nelson Elhage,
Neel Nanda,
Nicholas Joseph,
Nova DasSarma,
Tom Henighan,
Ben Mann,
Amanda Askell,
Yuntao Bai,
Anna Chen,
Tom Conerly,
Dawn Drain,
Deep Ganguli,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Danny Hernandez,
Scott Johnston,
Andy Jones,
Jackson Kernion,
Liane Lovitt,
Kamal Ndousse,
Dario Amodei,
Tom Brown,
Jack Clark,
Jared Kaplan,
Sam McCandlish
, et al. (1 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
"Induction heads" are attention heads that implement a simple algorithm to complete token sequences like [A][B] ... [A] -> [B]. In this work, we present preliminary and indirect evidence for a hypothesis that induction heads might constitute the mechanism for the majority of all "in-context learning" in large transformer models (i.e. decreasing loss at increasing token indices). We find that induc…
▽ More
"Induction heads" are attention heads that implement a simple algorithm to complete token sequences like [A][B] ... [A] -> [B]. In this work, we present preliminary and indirect evidence for a hypothesis that induction heads might constitute the mechanism for the majority of all "in-context learning" in large transformer models (i.e. decreasing loss at increasing token indices). We find that induction heads develop at precisely the same point as a sudden sharp increase in in-context learning ability, visible as a bump in the training loss. We present six complementary lines of evidence, arguing that induction heads may be the mechanistic source of general in-context learning in transformer models of any size. For small attention-only models, we present strong, causal evidence; for larger models with MLPs, we present correlational evidence.
△ Less
Submitted 23 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned
Authors:
Deep Ganguli,
Liane Lovitt,
Jackson Kernion,
Amanda Askell,
Yuntao Bai,
Saurav Kadavath,
Ben Mann,
Ethan Perez,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Kamal Ndousse,
Andy Jones,
Sam Bowman,
Anna Chen,
Tom Conerly,
Nova DasSarma,
Dawn Drain,
Nelson Elhage,
Sheer El-Showk,
Stanislav Fort,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Tom Henighan,
Danny Hernandez,
Tristan Hume,
Josh Jacobson,
Scott Johnston
, et al. (11 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We describe our early efforts to red team language models in order to simultaneously discover, measure, and attempt to reduce their potentially harmful outputs. We make three main contributions. First, we investigate scaling behaviors for red teaming across 3 model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and 4 model types: a plain language model (LM); an LM prompted to be helpful, honest, and harmle…
▽ More
We describe our early efforts to red team language models in order to simultaneously discover, measure, and attempt to reduce their potentially harmful outputs. We make three main contributions. First, we investigate scaling behaviors for red teaming across 3 model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and 4 model types: a plain language model (LM); an LM prompted to be helpful, honest, and harmless; an LM with rejection sampling; and a model trained to be helpful and harmless using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). We find that the RLHF models are increasingly difficult to red team as they scale, and we find a flat trend with scale for the other model types. Second, we release our dataset of 38,961 red team attacks for others to analyze and learn from. We provide our own analysis of the data and find a variety of harmful outputs, which range from offensive language to more subtly harmful non-violent unethical outputs. Third, we exhaustively describe our instructions, processes, statistical methodologies, and uncertainty about red teaming. We hope that this transparency accelerates our ability to work together as a community in order to develop shared norms, practices, and technical standards for how to red team language models.
△ Less
Submitted 22 November, 2022; v1 submitted 23 August, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Authors:
Saurav Kadavath,
Tom Conerly,
Amanda Askell,
Tom Henighan,
Dawn Drain,
Ethan Perez,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Nova DasSarma,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Scott Johnston,
Sheer El-Showk,
Andy Jones,
Nelson Elhage,
Tristan Hume,
Anna Chen,
Yuntao Bai,
Sam Bowman,
Stanislav Fort,
Deep Ganguli,
Danny Hernandez,
Josh Jacobson,
Jackson Kernion,
Shauna Kravec,
Liane Lovitt
, et al. (11 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answe…
▽ More
We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answers, and then to evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct. We find encouraging performance, calibration, and scaling for P(True) on a diverse array of tasks. Performance at self-evaluation further improves when we allow models to consider many of their own samples before predicting the validity of one specific possibility. Next, we investigate whether models can be trained to predict "P(IK)", the probability that "I know" the answer to a question, without reference to any particular proposed answer. Models perform well at predicting P(IK) and partially generalize across tasks, though they struggle with calibration of P(IK) on new tasks. The predicted P(IK) probabilities also increase appropriately in the presence of relevant source materials in the context, and in the presence of hints towards the solution of mathematical word problems. We hope these observations lay the groundwork for training more honest models, and for investigating how honesty generalizes to cases where models are trained on objectives other than the imitation of human writing.
△ Less
Submitted 21 November, 2022; v1 submitted 11 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
-
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Authors:
Aarohi Srivastava,
Abhinav Rastogi,
Abhishek Rao,
Abu Awal Md Shoeb,
Abubakar Abid,
Adam Fisch,
Adam R. Brown,
Adam Santoro,
Aditya Gupta,
Adrià Garriga-Alonso,
Agnieszka Kluska,
Aitor Lewkowycz,
Akshat Agarwal,
Alethea Power,
Alex Ray,
Alex Warstadt,
Alexander W. Kocurek,
Ali Safaya,
Ali Tazarv,
Alice Xiang,
Alicia Parrish,
Allen Nie,
Aman Hussain,
Amanda Askell,
Amanda Dsouza
, et al. (426 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-futur…
▽ More
Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2023; v1 submitted 9 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Authors:
Yuntao Bai,
Andy Jones,
Kamal Ndousse,
Amanda Askell,
Anna Chen,
Nova DasSarma,
Dawn Drain,
Stanislav Fort,
Deep Ganguli,
Tom Henighan,
Nicholas Joseph,
Saurav Kadavath,
Jackson Kernion,
Tom Conerly,
Sheer El-Showk,
Nelson Elhage,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Danny Hernandez,
Tristan Hume,
Scott Johnston,
Shauna Kravec,
Liane Lovitt,
Neel Nanda,
Catherine Olsson,
Dario Amodei
, et al. (6 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We apply preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to finetune language models to act as helpful and harmless assistants. We find this alignment training improves performance on almost all NLP evaluations, and is fully compatible with training for specialized skills such as python coding and summarization. We explore an iterated online mode of training, where prefer…
▽ More
We apply preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to finetune language models to act as helpful and harmless assistants. We find this alignment training improves performance on almost all NLP evaluations, and is fully compatible with training for specialized skills such as python coding and summarization. We explore an iterated online mode of training, where preference models and RL policies are updated on a weekly cadence with fresh human feedback data, efficiently improving our datasets and models. Finally, we investigate the robustness of RLHF training, and identify a roughly linear relation between the RL reward and the square root of the KL divergence between the policy and its initialization. Alongside our main results, we perform peripheral analyses on calibration, competing objectives, and the use of OOD detection, compare our models with human writers, and provide samples from our models using prompts appearing in recent related work.
△ Less
Submitted 12 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
-
Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models
Authors:
Deep Ganguli,
Danny Hernandez,
Liane Lovitt,
Nova DasSarma,
Tom Henighan,
Andy Jones,
Nicholas Joseph,
Jackson Kernion,
Ben Mann,
Amanda Askell,
Yuntao Bai,
Anna Chen,
Tom Conerly,
Dawn Drain,
Nelson Elhage,
Sheer El Showk,
Stanislav Fort,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Scott Johnston,
Shauna Kravec,
Neel Nanda,
Kamal Ndousse,
Catherine Olsson,
Daniela Amodei,
Dario Amodei
, et al. (5 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Large-scale pre-training has recently emerged as a technique for creating capable, general purpose, generative models such as GPT-3, Megatron-Turing NLG, Gopher, and many others. In this paper, we highlight a counterintuitive property of such models and discuss the policy implications of this property. Namely, these generative models have an unusual combination of predictable loss on a broad train…
▽ More
Large-scale pre-training has recently emerged as a technique for creating capable, general purpose, generative models such as GPT-3, Megatron-Turing NLG, Gopher, and many others. In this paper, we highlight a counterintuitive property of such models and discuss the policy implications of this property. Namely, these generative models have an unusual combination of predictable loss on a broad training distribution (as embodied in their "scaling laws"), and unpredictable specific capabilities, inputs, and outputs. We believe that the high-level predictability and appearance of useful capabilities drives rapid development of such models, while the unpredictable qualities make it difficult to anticipate the consequences of model deployment. We go through examples of how this combination can lead to socially harmful behavior with examples from the literature and real world observations, and we also perform two novel experiments to illustrate our point about harms from unpredictability. Furthermore, we analyze how these conflicting properties combine to give model developers various motivations for deploying these models, and challenges that can hinder deployment. We conclude with a list of possible interventions the AI community may take to increase the chance of these models having a beneficial impact. We intend this paper to be useful to policymakers who want to understand and regulate AI systems, technologists who care about the potential policy impact of their work, and academics who want to analyze, critique, and potentially develop large generative models.
△ Less
Submitted 3 October, 2022; v1 submitted 15 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment
Authors:
Amanda Askell,
Yuntao Bai,
Anna Chen,
Dawn Drain,
Deep Ganguli,
Tom Henighan,
Andy Jones,
Nicholas Joseph,
Ben Mann,
Nova DasSarma,
Nelson Elhage,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Danny Hernandez,
Jackson Kernion,
Kamal Ndousse,
Catherine Olsson,
Dario Amodei,
Tom Brown,
Jack Clark,
Sam McCandlish,
Chris Olah,
Jared Kaplan
Abstract:
Given the broad capabilities of large language models, it should be possible to work towards a general-purpose, text-based assistant that is aligned with human values, meaning that it is helpful, honest, and harmless. As an initial foray in this direction we study simple baseline techniques and evaluations, such as prompting. We find that the benefits from modest interventions increase with model…
▽ More
Given the broad capabilities of large language models, it should be possible to work towards a general-purpose, text-based assistant that is aligned with human values, meaning that it is helpful, honest, and harmless. As an initial foray in this direction we study simple baseline techniques and evaluations, such as prompting. We find that the benefits from modest interventions increase with model size, generalize to a variety of alignment evaluations, and do not compromise the performance of large models. Next we investigate scaling trends for several training objectives relevant to alignment, comparing imitation learning, binary discrimination, and ranked preference modeling. We find that ranked preference modeling performs much better than imitation learning, and often scales more favorably with model size. In contrast, binary discrimination typically performs and scales very similarly to imitation learning. Finally we study a `preference model pre-training' stage of training, with the goal of improving sample efficiency when finetuning on human preferences.
△ Less
Submitted 9 December, 2021; v1 submitted 1 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.