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.

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。

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.

鉴于大型语言模型的广泛能力，应该有可能朝着一般的文本的助手工作，这些助手与人类价值一致，这意味着它是有帮助，诚实的和无害的。在此方向上的初始遗传，我们研究简单的基线技术和评估，例如提示。我们发现，从模型规模增加适度的干预措施的好处，概括为各种对准评估，并不会损害大型模型的性能。接下来，我们调查与对齐，比较仿制，二进制歧视和排名偏好建模相关的几个培训目标的缩放趋势。我们发现排名优先级模型比模仿学习更好地表现得多，并且通常以模型大小更有利地缩放。相比之下，二进制歧视通常与模仿学习非常类似地执行和缩放。最后，我们研究了一种“偏好模型预训练阶段的培训阶段，其目的是在对人偏好的芬明时提高样本效率。

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.

我们微调GPT-3使用基于文本的Web浏览环境来回答长形问题，允许模型搜索和导航Web。通过建立任务，以便通过人类执行，我们能够使用模仿学习培训在任务上的模型，然后通过人体反馈优化答案质量。为了使人为评估事实精度更容易，模型必须在浏览支持答案时收集引用。我们在ELI5上培训并评估我们的模型，Reddit用户提出的问题数据集。我们的最佳模型是通过使用行为克隆进行微调GPT-3获得的，然后对训练训练的奖励模型进行拒绝采样来获得以预测人类偏好。这种模式的答案是人类56％的答案，我们的人类示威者的时间和69％的时间到Reddit的最高投票答复。

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。

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NLP社区Metasurvey的结果。从2022年5月到2022年6月，该调查引起了关于有争议的问题的意见，包括该领域的行业影响，对AGI和道德规范的关注。我们的结果将具体数字置于几个争议中：例如，受访者几乎完全将有关人工通用智能的重要性的问题分为一半，语言模型是否理解语言以及语言结构的必要性以及解决NLP问题的必要性。此外，调查提出了元问题，要求受访者预测调查响应的分布。这不仅使我们不仅可以深入了解NLP研究人员所拥有的各种信念，还可以揭示社区预测与现实不符的错误社会学信念。我们在各种问题上发现这种不匹配。除其他结果外，社区大大高估了其对基准的实用性的信念，以及扩展解决现实世界中问题的潜力，同时低估了其对语言结构，归纳偏见和跨学科科学重要性的信念。

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。

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。

我们调整了大型语言模型，以使用行为克隆来编写自然语言批评（自然语言批判性评论）。关于基于主题的摘要任务，我们的模型所写的批评帮助人类在摘要中发现了本来会错过的漏洞。我们的模型有助于在模型和人类书面摘要中发现自然存在的缺陷，以及人类撰写的摘要中有意误导的摘要中的缺陷。我们研究批评的缩放特性，包括基于主题的汇总和合成任务。较大的模型写出更多有用的批评，在大多数任务上，尽管产生了更困难的输出，但在大多数任务上都更好地进行了自我关注。较大的模型还可以将自己的自我批评纳入反馈，将自己的摘要完善为更好的摘要。最后，我们激励并引入了一个框架，以比较批评能力的产生和歧视能力。我们的测量表明，即使是大型模型也可能仍然具有他们无法或不表达为批评的相关知识。这些结果是使用AI辅助的人类反馈来扩展机器学习系统的监督到人类直接评估的任务的概念证明。我们释放培训数据集以及批评援助实验的样本。

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.

抽象推理是智能系统的关键能力。大型语言模型在抽象推理任务上实现了高度的性能，但表现出许多缺陷。但是，人类的抽象推理也是不完美的，并且取决于我们对推理问题内容的知识和信念。例如，人类对在日常情况下基于逻辑规则的逻辑规则比关于抽象属性的任意规则更可靠地理解。语言模型的培训经验类似地赋予了他们先前的期望，这些期望反映了人类的知识和信念。因此，我们假设语言模型会显示出类似人类的内容对抽象推理问题的影响。我们在三个逻辑推理任务中探讨了这一假设：自然语言推论，判断三段论的逻辑有效性和ison选择任务（Wason，1968）。我们发现，最新的大语言模型（具有7或700亿个参数； Hoffman等，2022）反映了这些任务中人类在人类中观察到的许多相同模式 - 像人类一样，模型对可信情况的理由更有效地理由不现实或抽象的。我们的发现对理解这些认知效应以及有助于语言模型表现的因素具有影响。

我们建议并探讨可以将语言模型作为社会科学研究中特定人类亚人群的有效代理进行研究的可能性。人工智能工具的实践和研究应用有时受到有问题的偏见（例如种族主义或性别歧视）的限制，这些偏见通常被视为模型的统一特性。我们表明，一个这样的工具中的“算法偏见”（GPT-3语言模型）既是细粒度又是人口统计相关的，这意味着适当的条件会导致其准确地仿真来自各种人类的响应分布亚组。我们将此属性称为“算法忠诚度”，并在GPT-3中探索其范围。我们通过将模型调节在美国进行的多项大型调查中的数千个社会人口统计背景故事中调节，从而创建“硅样本”。然后，我们比较硅和人类样品，以证明GPT-3中包含的信息远远超出了表面相似性。它是细微的，多方面的，并反映了特征人类态度的思想，态度和社会文化背景之间的复杂相互作用。我们建议，具有足够算法的忠诚度的语言模型构成了一种新颖而有力的工具，可以促进各种学科的人类和社会的理解。

Recent work in large language modeling (LLMs) has used fine-tuning to align outputs with the preferences of a prototypical user. This work assumes that human preferences are static and homogeneous across individuals, so that aligning to a a single "generic" user will confer more general alignment. Here, we embrace the heterogeneity of human preferences to consider a different challenge: how might a machine help people with diverse views find agreement? We fine-tune a 70 billion parameter LLM to generate statements that maximize the expected approval for a group of people with potentially diverse opinions. Human participants provide written opinions on thousands of questions touching on moral and political issues (e.g., "should we raise taxes on the rich?"), and rate the LLM's generated candidate consensus statements for agreement and quality. A reward model is then trained to predict individual preferences, enabling it to quantify and rank consensus statements in terms of their appeal to the overall group, defined according to different aggregation (social welfare) functions. The model produces consensus statements that are preferred by human users over those from prompted LLMs (>70%) and significantly outperforms a tight fine-tuned baseline that lacks the final ranking step. Further, our best model's consensus statements are preferred over the best human-generated opinions (>65%). We find that when we silently constructed consensus statements from only a subset of group members, those who were excluded were more likely to dissent, revealing the sensitivity of the consensus to individual contributions. These results highlight the potential to use LLMs to help groups of humans align their values with one another.

当前的语言模型可以产生高质量的文本。他们只是复制他们之前看到的文本，或者他们学习了普遍的语言抽象吗？要取笑这些可能性，我们介绍了乌鸦，这是一套评估生成文本的新颖性，专注于顺序结构（n-gram）和句法结构。我们将这些分析应用于四种神经语言模型（LSTM，变压器，变换器-XL和GPT-2）。对于本地结构 - 例如，单个依赖性 - 模型生成的文本比来自每个模型的测试集的人类生成文本的基线显着不那么新颖。对于大规模结构 - 例如，总句结构 - 模型生成的文本与人生成的基线一样新颖甚至更新颖，但模型仍然有时复制，在某些情况下，在训练集中重复超过1000字超过1,000字的通道。我们还表现了广泛的手动分析，表明GPT-2的新文本通常在形态学和语法中形成良好，但具有合理的语义问题（例如，是自相矛盾）。

Finetuning language models on a collection of datasets phrased as instructions has been shown to improve model performance and generalization to unseen tasks. In this paper we explore instruction finetuning with a particular focus on (1) scaling the number of tasks, (2) scaling the model size, and (3) finetuning on chain-of-thought data. We find that instruction finetuning with the above aspects dramatically improves performance on a variety of model classes (PaLM, T5, U-PaLM), prompting setups (zero-shot, few-shot, CoT), and evaluation benchmarks (MMLU, BBH, TyDiQA, MGSM, open-ended generation). For instance, Flan-PaLM 540B instruction-finetuned on 1.8K tasks outperforms PALM 540B by a large margin (+9.4% on average). Flan-PaLM 540B achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks, such as 75.2% on five-shot MMLU. We also publicly release Flan-T5 checkpoints, which achieve strong few-shot performance even compared to much larger models, such as PaLM 62B. Overall, instruction finetuning is a general method for improving the performance and usability of pretrained language models.

我们研究语言模型是否可以评估自己主张的有效性，并预测他们能够正确回答的问题。我们首先表明，当以正确的格式提供时，较大的模型在多样化的多项选择和True/False问题上进行了很好的校准。因此，我们可以通过要求模型首先提出答案，然后评估其答案正确的概率“ p（true）”来对开放式采样任务进行自我评估。我们发现在各种任务中，P（true）的表现，校准和缩放令人鼓舞。当我们允许模型考虑自己的许多样本之前，在预测一种特定可能性的有效性之前，自我评估的性能进一步改善。接下来，我们研究是否可以培训模型来预测“ P（ik）”，即“我知道”问题的概率，而无需参考任何特定提出的答案。模型在预测P（IK）方面表现良好，并且在跨任务中部分概括，尽管它们在新任务上的P（IK）校准方面遇到了困难。预测的p（IK）概率在存在相关的原始材料的情况下以及对数学单词问题解决方案的提示也适当增加。我们希望这些观察结果为培训更诚实的模型提供了基础，并研究了诚实对模型模仿人类写作以外的其他目标培训的案例的普遍性。