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.

尽管大型语言模型（LLMS）经常产生令人印象深刻的输出，但它们也无法推理和事实。我们着手研究这些限制如何影响LLM回答基于困难的问题的能力和理由。我们应用了与人类一致的GPT-3（指示程序）回答多项选择体检问题（USMLE和MEDMCQA）和医学研究问题（PubMedQA）。我们调查了思想链（逐步思考）提示，接地（通过搜索结果增强提示）和很少的射击（以问答的示例来准备问题）。对于USMLE问题的子集，医疗领域专家审查并注释了模型的推理。总体而言，GPT-3取得了最新的机器学习绩效的重大改进。我们观察到GPT-3通常是知识渊博的，并且可以理解医疗问题。 GPT-3当面对一个无法回答的问题时，仍将尝试回答，通常会导致偏见的预测分布。 LLM与人类绩效不相同，但我们的结果表明，与医疗问题解决的推理模式的出现。我们推测，缩放模型和数据，增强及时对齐方式以及允许更好地完成完成的上下文化将足以使LLMS在此类任务上达到人级的性能。

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。

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.

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.

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。

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。

We demonstrate that scaling up language models greatly improves task-agnostic, few-shot performance, sometimes even becoming competitive with prior state-ofthe-art fine-tuning approaches. Specifically, we train GPT-3, an autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters, 10x more than any previous nonsparse language model, and test its performance in the few-shot setting. For all tasks, GPT-3 is applied without any gradient updates or fine-tuning, with tasks and few-shot demonstrations specified purely via text interaction with the model. GPT-3 achieves strong performance on many NLP datasets, including translation, question-answering, and cloze tasks. We also identify some datasets where GPT-3's few-shot learning still struggles, as well as some datasets where GPT-3 faces methodological issues related to training on large web corpora.

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.

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。

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.

Generating a chain of thought (CoT) can increase large language model (LLM) performance on a wide range of tasks. Zero-shot CoT evaluations, however, have been conducted primarily on logical tasks (e.g. arithmetic, commonsense QA). In this paper, we perform a controlled evaluation of zero-shot CoT across two sensitive domains: harmful questions and stereotype benchmarks. We find that using zero-shot CoT reasoning in a prompt can significantly increase a model's likelihood to produce undesirable output. Without future advances in alignment or explicit mitigation instructions, zero-shot CoT should be avoided on tasks where models can make inferences about marginalized groups or harmful topics.

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.

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 how to turn it into one that can be productively studied empirically. We first present an experimental design centered on choosing tasks for which human specialists succeed but unaided humans and current general AI systems fail. We then present a proof-of-concept experiment following 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.

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。

我们探索如何产生一系列思想 - 一系列中间推理步骤 - 显着提高了大语言模型执行复杂推理的能力。特别是，我们通过一种称为“思想链”提示的简单方法在足够大的语言模型中自然出现这种推理能力，在此过程中，一些思想示范被作为提示的示例提供了。三种大语模型的实验表明，促使思想链提高了一系列算术，常识和象征性推理任务的性能。经验收益可能会引人注目。例如，仅使用八个思想范围的540B参数语言模型才能在数学单词问题的GSM8K基准上实现最新的精度，甚至超过了带有验证器的Fineted GPT-3。

随着AI系统表现出越来越强烈的预测性能，它们的采用已经在许多域中种植。然而，在刑事司法和医疗保健等高赌场域中，由于安全，道德和法律问题，往往是完全自动化的，但是完全手工方法可能是不准确和耗时的。因此，对研究界的兴趣日益增长，以增加人力决策。除了为此目的开发AI技术之外，人民AI决策的新兴领域必须采用实证方法，以形成对人类如何互动和与AI合作做出决定的基础知识。为了邀请和帮助结构研究努力了解理解和改善人为 - AI决策的研究，我们近期对本课题的实证人体研究的文献。我们总结了在三个重要方面的100多篇论文中的研究设计选择：（1）决定任务，（2）AI模型和AI援助要素，以及（3）评估指标。对于每个方面，我们总结了当前的趋势，讨论了现场当前做法中的差距，并列出了未来研究的建议。我们的调查强调了开发共同框架的需要考虑人类 - AI决策的设计和研究空间，因此研究人员可以在研究设计中进行严格的选择，研究界可以互相构建并产生更广泛的科学知识。我们还希望这项调查将成为HCI和AI社区的桥梁，共同努力，相互塑造人类决策的经验科学和计算技术。

The meaningful use of electronic health records (EHR) continues to progress in the digital era with clinical decision support systems augmented by artificial intelligence. A priority in improving provider experience is to overcome information overload and reduce the cognitive burden so fewer medical errors and cognitive biases are introduced during patient care. One major type of medical error is diagnostic error due to systematic or predictable errors in judgment that rely on heuristics. The potential for clinical natural language processing (cNLP) to model diagnostic reasoning in humans with forward reasoning from data to diagnosis and potentially reduce the cognitive burden and medical error has not been investigated. Existing tasks to advance the science in cNLP have largely focused on information extraction and named entity recognition through classification tasks. We introduce a novel suite of tasks coined as Diagnostic Reasoning Benchmarks, DR.BENCH, as a new benchmark for developing and evaluating cNLP models with clinical diagnostic reasoning ability. The suite includes six tasks from ten publicly available datasets addressing clinical text understanding, medical knowledge reasoning, and diagnosis generation. DR.BENCH is the first clinical suite of tasks designed to be a natural language generation framework to evaluate pre-trained language models. Experiments with state-of-the-art pre-trained generative language models using large general domain models and models that were continually trained on a medical corpus demonstrate opportunities for improvement when evaluated in DR. BENCH. We share DR. BENCH as a publicly available GitLab repository with a systematic approach to load and evaluate models for the cNLP community.

大型语言模型经常经过数十万个计算天的训练，已经显示出零和少数学习的显着功能。鉴于它们的计算成本，如果没有大量资本，这些模型很难复制。对于通过API可用的少数产品，没有访问完整的模型权重，因此很难学习。我们提供开放训练的预训练变压器（OPT），这是一套仅解码器预训练的变压器，范围从12500万到175b参数，我们旨在与感兴趣的研究人员完全和负责任地分享。我们表明，OPT-175B与GPT-3相当，而仅需要1/7碳足迹才能开发。我们还释放了日志，详细介绍了我们面临的基础架构挑战，以及用于尝试所有发布模型的代码。