随着人工智能系统变得越来越强大和普遍，人们对机器的道德或缺乏道德的关注变得越来越关注。然而，向机器讲授道德是一项艰巨的任务，因为道德仍然是人类中最激烈的争论问题之一，更不用说AI了。但是，部署到数百万用户的现有AI系统已经在做出充满道德影响的决策，这构成了一个看似不可能的挑战：教学机器的道德意义，而人类继续努力努力。为了探索这一挑战，我们介绍了Delphi，这是一个基于深层神经网络的实验框架，直接训练了描述性道德判断，例如，“帮助朋友”通常是不错的，而“帮助朋友传播假新闻”不是。经验结果提供了对机器伦理的承诺和局限性的新见解。面对新的道德情况，德尔菲（Delphi）表现出强大的概括能力，而现成的神经网络模型表现出明显差的判断，包括不公正的偏见，证实了对明确教学机器的道德意义的必要性。然而，德尔菲并不完美，表现出对普遍性偏见和不一致的敏感性。尽管如此，我们还是展示了不完美的Delphi的积极用例，包括在其他不完美的AI系统中将其用作组件模型。重要的是，我们根据著名的道德理论来解释Delphi的运营化，这使我们提出了重要的未来研究问题。

道德是人类最长的智力努力之一。近年来，AI和NLP的领域试图撰写与学习系统的与人类相互作用的学习系统，应该被限制为行为道德。该静脉中的一个提议是建立道德模型，可以采取任意文本，并输出关于所描述的情况的道德判断。在这项工作中，我们专注于对最近提出的Delphi模型的单一案例研究，并为该项目的建议自动化道德判决提供了批评。通过对Delphi的审计，我们检查更广泛的问题，适用于任何类似的尝试。我们讨论了机器道德如何通过专注于技术的当前和近期使用技术的方式来讨论机器伦理，以透明度，民主价值观，并允许直接的责任。

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda capturing complex computational legal processes, and embedding them in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.

我们介绍了Sparrow，这是一个寻求信息的对话代理，与提示的语言模型基线相比，训练有素，更有帮助，正确和无害。我们使用从人类反馈中的强化学习来培训我们的模型，以帮助人类评估者判断代理人的行为。首先，为了使我们的代理人更有帮助和无害，我们将良好对话的要求分解为代理人应遵循的自然语言规则，并分别向评估者询问每个规则。我们证明，这种崩溃使我们能够收集对代理行为的更多针对性的人类判断，并允许更有效的规则条件奖励模型。其次，我们的代理商在收集对模型声明的偏好判决时提供了支持事实主张的来源的证据。对于事实问题，麻雀提供的证据支持了78％的时间。比基线比基线更享受麻雀，同时对人类的对抗性探测更具弹性，在探测时只有8％的时间违反了我们的规则。最后，我们进行了广泛的分析，表明尽管我们的模型学会遵守我们的规则，但它可以表现出分布偏见。

情绪分析中最突出的任务是为文本分配情绪，并了解情绪如何在语言中表现出来。自然语言处理的一个重要观察结果是，即使没有明确提及情感名称，也可以通过单独参考事件来隐式传达情绪。在心理学中，被称为评估理论的情感理论类别旨在解释事件与情感之间的联系。评估可以被形式化为变量，通过他们认为相关的事件的人们的认知评估来衡量认知评估。其中包括评估事件是否是新颖的，如果该人认为自己负责，是否与自己的目标以及许多其他人保持一致。这样的评估解释了哪些情绪是基于事件开发的，例如，新颖的情况会引起惊喜或不确定后果的人可能引起恐惧。我们在文本中分析了评估理论对情绪分析的适用性，目的是理解注释者是否可以可靠地重建评估概念，如果可以通过文本分类器预测，以及评估概念是否有助于识别情感类别。为了实现这一目标，我们通过要求人们发短信描述触发特定情绪并披露其评估的事件来编译语料库。然后，我们要求读者重建文本中的情感和评估。这种设置使我们能够衡量是否可以纯粹从文本中恢复情绪和评估，并为判断模型的绩效指标提供人体基准。我们将文本分类方法与人类注释者的比较表明，两者都可以可靠地检测出具有相似性能的情绪和评估。我们进一步表明，评估概念改善了文本中情绪的分类。

语言模型可以根据给定的文化背景产生有害和偏置的输出并表现出不良行为。我们提出了一种将语言模型适应社会（PALM）与值目标数据集的过程，以通过在反映预定的一组目标值集合的数据集上进行制备和微调来显着地改变模型行为的迭代过程。我们使用三个指标评估我们的进程：具有人类评估的定量指标，将输出遵守目标值，毒性评分对产出;和定性度量分析与给定社会类别相关的最常见的单词。通过每次迭代，我们根据来自评估的观察到的缺点添加其他培训数据集示例。与基线和控制模型相比，PALMS在所有指标上显着更好地为广泛的GPT-3语言模型尺寸进行了基线和控制模型，而不会影响能力完整性。我们发现PALMS的有效性随模型规模而增加。我们表明，显着调整语言模型行为与小型手腕策划数据集是可行的。

道德框架和情感会影响各种在线和离线行为，包括捐赠，亲环境行动，政治参与，甚至参与暴力抗议活动。自然语言处理中的各种计算方法（NLP）已被用来从文本数据中检测道德情绪，但是为了在此类主观任务中取得更好的性能，需要大量的手工注销训练数据。事实证明，以前对道德情绪注释的语料库已被证明是有价值的，并且在NLP和整个社会科学中都产生了新的见解，但仅限于Twitter。为了促进我们对道德修辞的作用的理解，我们介绍了道德基础Reddit语料库，收集了16,123个reddit评论，这些评论已从12个不同的子雷迪维特策划，由至少三个训练有素的注释者手工注释，用于8种道德情绪（即护理，相称性，平等，纯洁，权威，忠诚，瘦道，隐含/明确的道德）基于更新的道德基础理论（MFT）框架。我们使用一系列方法来为这种新的语料库（例如跨域分类和知识转移）提供基线道德句子分类结果。

本次调查绘制了用于分析社交媒体数据的生成方法的研究状态的广泛的全景照片（Sota）。它填补了空白，因为现有的调查文章在其范围内或被约会。我们包括两个重要方面，目前正在挖掘和建模社交媒体的重要性：动态和网络。社会动态对于了解影响影响或疾病的传播，友谊的形成，友谊的形成等，另一方面，可以捕获各种复杂关系，提供额外的洞察力和识别否则将不会被注意的重要模式。

大型语言模型会产生类似人类的文本，这些文本推动了越来越多的应用。但是，最近的文献以及越来越多的现实世界观察表明，这些模型可以产生有毒，有偏见，不真实或其他有害的语言。尽管正在进行评估语言模型危害的工作，但要远见卓识转换出可能出现的危害可能会引起严格的基准。为了促进这种翻译，我们概述了六种表征有害文本的方式，这些方法在设计新基准时值得明确考虑。然后，我们将这些特征用作镜头来识别现有基准中的趋势和差距。最后，我们将它们应用于视角API的案例研究，这是一种毒性分类器，被广泛用于HARS基准。我们的特征提供了一块桥梁，可以在远见和有效评估之间转化。

Many real-world applications of language models (LMs), such as code autocomplete and writing assistance, involve human-LM interaction, but the main LM benchmarks are non-interactive, where a system produces output without human intervention. To evaluate human-LM interaction, we develop a framework, Human-AI Language-based Interaction Evaluation (H-LINE), that expands non-interactive evaluation along three dimensions, capturing (i) the interactive process, not only the final output; (ii) the first-person subjective experience, not just a third-party assessment; and (iii) notions of preference beyond quality. We then design five tasks ranging from goal-oriented to open-ended to capture different forms of interaction. On four state-of-the-art LMs (three variants of OpenAI's GPT-3 and AI21's J1-Jumbo), we find that non-interactive performance does not always result in better human-LM interaction and that first-person and third-party metrics can diverge, suggesting the importance of examining the nuances of human-LM interaction.

最近已被证明大型语言模型在各种任务集中获得合理的零射普通化（Brown等，2020）。它已经假设这是语言模型的隐式多任务学习的结果，在语言模型中的预押（Radford等，2019）。可以通过明确的多任务学习直接引起零拍常规化？为了以缩放测试这个问题，我们开发一个系统，以便轻松地将任何自然语言任务映射到人类可读的提示表单中。我们转换一组大量的监督数据集，每个数据集都有多个提示，具有不同的措辞。这些提示的数据集允许基准测试模型执行完全看不见的任务的能力。我们介绍了一个普拉克尔编码器 - 解码器模型（Raffel等，2020; Lester等，2021），覆盖各种任务。该模型在多个标准数据集中达到强大的零点性能，通常优于其尺寸的型号超过16倍。此外，我们的方法对来自Big-替补基准测试的任务子集具有强烈性能，优于其尺寸的6倍。所有提示和培训的型号都可以在https://github.com/ bigscience-workshop / protectsource / httpsource / https：//huggingface.co/bigscience/t0pp。

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but the quality bar for medical and clinical applications is high. Today, attempts to assess models' clinical knowledge typically rely on automated evaluations on limited benchmarks. There is no standard to evaluate model predictions and reasoning across a breadth of tasks. To address this, we present MultiMedQA, a benchmark combining six existing open question answering datasets spanning professional medical exams, research, and consumer queries; and HealthSearchQA, a new free-response dataset of medical questions searched online. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. In addition, we evaluate PaLM (a 540-billion parameter LLM) and its instruction-tuned variant, Flan-PaLM, on MultiMedQA. Using a combination of prompting strategies, Flan-PaLM achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on every MultiMedQA multiple-choice dataset (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, MMLU clinical topics), including 67.6% accuracy on MedQA (US Medical License Exam questions), surpassing prior state-of-the-art by over 17%. However, human evaluation reveals key gaps in Flan-PaLM responses. To resolve this we introduce instruction prompt tuning, a parameter-efficient approach for aligning LLMs to new domains using a few exemplars. The resulting model, Med-PaLM, performs encouragingly, but remains inferior to clinicians. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning, suggesting the potential utility of LLMs in medicine. Our human evaluations reveal important limitations of today's models, reinforcing the importance of both evaluation frameworks and method development in creating safe, helpful LLM models for clinical applications.

我们生活中情绪的重要性和普及性使得情感计算了一个非常重要和充满活力的工作。自动情感识别（AER）和情感分析的系统可以是巨大进展的促进者（例如，改善公共卫生和商业），而且还有巨大伤害的推动者（例如，用于抑制持不同政见者和操纵选民）。因此，情感计算社区必须积极地与其创作的道德后果搞。在本文中，我已经从AI伦理和情感认可文学中综合和组织信息，以提出与AER相关的五十个道德考虑因素。值得注意的是，纸张捏出了隐藏在如何框架的假设，并且在经常对数据，方法和评估的选择中的选择。特别关注在隐私和社会群体上的AER对AER的影响。沿途，关键建议是针对负责任的航空制作的。纸张的目标是促进和鼓励更加思考为什么自动化，如何自动化，以及如何在建立AER系统之前判断成功。此外，该纸张作为情感认可的有用介绍文件（补充调查文章）。

语言可以用作再现和执行有害刻板印象和偏差的手段，并被分析在许多研究中。在本文中，我们对自然语言处理中的性别偏见进行了304篇论文。我们分析了社会科学中性别及其类别的定义，并将其连接到NLP研究中性别偏见的正式定义。我们调查了在对性别偏见的研究中应用的Lexica和数据集，然后比较和对比方法来检测和减轻性别偏见。我们发现对性别偏见的研究遭受了四个核心限制。 1）大多数研究将性别视为忽视其流动性和连续性的二元变量。 2）大部分工作都在单机设置中进行英语或其他高资源语言进行。 3）尽管在NLP方法中对性别偏见进行了无数的论文，但我们发现大多数新开发的算法都没有测试他们的偏见模型，并无视他们的工作的伦理考虑。 4）最后，在这一研究线上发展的方法基本缺陷涵盖性别偏差的非常有限的定义，缺乏评估基线和管道。我们建议建议克服这些限制作为未来研究的指导。

Recent work pre-training Transformers with self-supervised objectives on large text corpora has shown great success when fine-tuned on downstream NLP tasks including text summarization. However, pre-training objectives tailored for abstractive text summarization have not been explored. Furthermore there is a lack of systematic evaluation across diverse domains. In this work, we propose pre-training large Transformer-based encoder-decoder models on massive text corpora with a new selfsupervised objective. In PEGASUS, important sentences are removed/masked from an input document and are generated together as one output sequence from the remaining sentences, similar to an extractive summary. We evaluated our best PEGASUS model on 12 downstream summarization tasks spanning news, science, stories, instructions, emails, patents, and legislative bills. Experiments demonstrate it achieves state-of-the-art performance on all 12 downstream datasets measured by ROUGE scores. Our model also shows surprising performance on low-resource summarization, surpassing previous state-of-the-art results on 6 datasets with only 1000 examples. Finally we validated our results using human evaluation and show that our model summaries achieve human performance on multiple datasets.

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

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.

Recent work has shown that fine-tuning large pre-trained language models on a collection of tasks described via instructions, a.k.a. instruction-tuning, improves their zero and few-shot generalization to unseen tasks. However, there is a limited understanding of the performance trade-offs of different decisions made during the instruction-tuning process. These decisions include the scale and diversity of the instruction-tuning benchmark, different task sampling strategies, fine-tuning with and without demonstrations, training using specialized datasets for reasoning and dialogue, and finally, the fine-tuning objectives themselves. In this paper, we characterize the effect of instruction-tuning decisions on downstream task performance when scaling both model and benchmark sizes. To this end, we create OPT-IML Bench: a large benchmark for Instruction Meta-Learning (IML) of 2000 NLP tasks consolidated into task categories from 8 existing benchmarks, and prepare an evaluation framework to measure three types of model generalizations: to tasks from fully held-out categories, to held-out tasks from seen categories, and to held-out instances from seen tasks. Through the lens of this framework, we first present insights about instruction-tuning decisions as applied to OPT-30B and further exploit these insights to train OPT-IML 30B and 175B, which are instruction-tuned versions of OPT. OPT-IML demonstrates all three generalization abilities at both scales on four different evaluation benchmarks with diverse tasks and input formats -- PromptSource, FLAN, Super-NaturalInstructions, and UnifiedSKG. Not only does it significantly outperform OPT on all benchmarks but is also highly competitive with existing models fine-tuned on each specific benchmark. We release OPT-IML at both scales, together with the OPT-IML Bench evaluation framework.

最近围绕语言处理模型的复杂性的最新炒作使人们对机器获得了类似人类自然语言的指挥的乐观情绪。人工智能中自然语言理解的领域声称在这一领域取得了长足的进步，但是，在这方面和其他学科中使用“理解”的概念性清晰，使我们很难辨别我们实际上有多近的距离。目前的方法和剩余挑战的全面，跨学科的概述尚待进行。除了语言知识之外，这还需要考虑我们特定于物种的能力，以对，记忆，标签和传达我们（足够相似的）体现和位置经验。此外，测量实际约束需要严格分析当前模型的技术能力，以及对理论可能性和局限性的更深入的哲学反思。在本文中，我将所有这些观点（哲学，认知语言和技术）团结在一起，以揭开达到真实（人类般的）语言理解所涉及的挑战。通过解开当前方法固有的理论假设，我希望说明我们距离实现这一目标的实际程度，如果确实是目标。

Despite being responsible for state-of-the-art results in several computer vision and natural language processing tasks, neural networks have faced harsh criticism due to some of their current shortcomings. One of them is that neural networks are correlation machines prone to model biases within the data instead of focusing on actual useful causal relationships. This problem is particularly serious in application domains affected by aspects such as race, gender, and age. To prevent models from incurring on unfair decision-making, the AI community has concentrated efforts in correcting algorithmic biases, giving rise to the research area now widely known as fairness in AI. In this survey paper, we provide an in-depth overview of the main debiasing methods for fairness-aware neural networks in the context of vision and language research. We propose a novel taxonomy to better organize the literature on debiasing methods for fairness, and we discuss the current challenges, trends, and important future work directions for the interested researcher and practitioner.