Drawing from the resources of psychoanalysis and critical media studies, in this paper we develop an analysis of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated subjects. We argue the intentional fictional projection of subjectivity onto LLMs can yield an alternate frame through which AI behaviour, including its productions of bias and harm, can be analysed. First, we introduce language models, discuss their significance and risks, and outline our case for interpreting model design and outputs with support from psychoanalytic concepts. We trace a brief history of language models, culminating with the releases, in 2022, of systems that realise state-of-the-art natural language processing performance. We engage with one such system, OpenAI's InstructGPT, as a case study, detailing the layers of its construction and conducting exploratory and semi-structured interviews with chatbots. These interviews probe the model's moral imperatives to be helpful, truthful and harmless by design. The model acts, we argue, as the condensation of often competing social desires, articulated through the internet and harvested into training data, which must then be regulated and repressed. This foundational structure can however be redirected via prompting, so that the model comes to identify with, and transfer, its commitments to the immediate human subject before it. In turn, these automated productions of language can lead to the human subject projecting agency upon the model, effecting occasionally further forms of countertransference. We conclude that critical media methods and psychoanalytic theory together offer a productive frame for grasping the powerful new capacities of AI-driven language systems.

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。

大型语言模型，例如OpenAI的法典和DeepMind的字母，可以生成代码来解决以自然语言表达的各种问题。这项技术已经在至少一项广泛使用的编程编辑器扩展程序中进行了商业化：Github Copilot。在本文中，我们探讨了具有大型语言模型（LLM辅助编程）的编程与程序员协助的先前概念化相似，并且与众不同。我们借鉴了公开可用的经验报告，有关LLM辅助编程以及先前的可用性和设计研究。我们发现，尽管LLM辅助编程通过搜索和重用分享了一些编译，配对编程和编程的属性，但技术可能性和实践经验都存在根本差异。因此，应该将LLM辅助编程视为具有自己独特的属性和挑战的新方法。最后，我们借鉴了用户研究的观察结果，在该观察中，非专家最终用户程序员使用LLM辅助工具来求解电子表格中的数据任务。我们讨论可能出现的问题，并在将大型语言模型应用于最终用户编程时，尤其是对于几乎没有编程专业知识的用户。

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.

大规模的语言技术越来越多地用于与人类在不同情况下的各种形式的交流中。这些技术的一种特殊用例是对话剂，它会根据提示和查询输出自然语言文本。这种参与方式提出了许多社会和道德问题。例如，将对话剂与人类规范或价值观相结合意味着什么？它们应该与哪些规范或价值观保持一致？如何实现这一目标？在本文中，我们提出了许多步骤来帮助回答这些问题。我们首先要对对话代理人和人类对话者之间语言交流的基础进行哲学分析。然后，我们使用此分析来识别和制定理想的对话规范，这些规范可以控制人类与对话代理之间的成功语言交流。此外，我们探讨了如何使用这些规范来使对话剂与在一系列不同的话语领域中的人类价值相结合。最后，我们讨论了我们对与这些规范和价值观一致的对话代理设计的建议的实际含义。

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。

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。

大型语言模型（LLMS）具有变革性。它们是预先训练的基础模型，可以通过微调来适应许多不同的自然语言任务，以前每个任务都需要单独的网络模型。这是接近人类语言的非凡多功能性的一步。 GPT-3和最近的LAMDA可以与人类进行对话，并在最少的启动之后与许多例子进行许多主题。但是，关于这些LLM是否了解他们在说什么或表现出智力迹象的反应。在与LLM的三次访谈中得出截然不同的结论中，这种较高的差异显示出来。发现了一种新的可能性，可以解释这种分歧。实际上，LLM中似乎是智慧的是反映面试官智力的镜子，这是一个显着的转折，可以被视为反向图灵测试。如果是这样，那么通过研究访谈，我们可能会更多地了解面试官的智力和信念，而不是LLM的智能。

我们提出了一项探索性定性研究，以了解作家如何与下一页建议相互作用。尽管对建议系统对写作的影响进行了一些定量研究，但几乎没有定性的工作来理解作家如何与建议系统互动及其如何影响他们的写作过程 - 特别是针对非本地但英国作家的。我们进行了一项研究，要求业余作家分别写两部电影评论，一本没有建议。我们发现作家以各种复杂的方式与下一页建议互动 - 作家能够抽象建议的多个部分并将其纳入他们的写作中 - 即使他们不同意整个建议。建议系统对写作过程也有各种影响 - 以独特的方式为写作过程的不同方面做出了影响。我们提出了一种用于与GPT-2写作的作家 - 探索互动模型，用于电影评论写作任务，然后是该模型可用于未来研究的方式，并概述了研究和设计的机会。

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.

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.

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

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。

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。

语言基础的挑战是通过在现实世界中的引用中充分理解自然语言。尽管可以使用AI技术，但此类技术对人类机器人团队的广泛采用和有效性依赖于用户信任。这项调查提供了有关语言基础的新兴信任领域的三项贡献，包括a）根据AI技术，数据集和用户界面的语言基础研究概述；b）与语言基础有关的六个假设信任因素，这些因素在人机清洁团队经验中进行了经验测试；c）对语言基础的信任的未来研究指示。

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.

This paper provides an introductory survey to GPT-3. We cover some of the historical development behind this technology, some of the key features of GPT-3, and discuss the machine learning model and the datasets used. We survey both academic and commercial efforts applying GPT-3 in diverse domains such as developing conversational AI chatbots, software development, creative work, domain knowledge, and business productivity. We discuss some of the challenges that GPT-3 faces such as the problems of training complexity, bias, and hallucination/incorrect answers. We also discuss the future research opportunities in this area.

Recent developments in natural language generation (NLG) using neural language models have brought us closer than ever to the goal of building AI-powered creative writing tools. However, most prior work on human-AI collaboration in the creative writing domain has evaluated new systems with amateur writers, typically in contrived user studies of limited scope. In this work, we commissioned 13 professional, published writers from a diverse set of creative writing backgrounds to craft stories using Wordcraft, a text editor with built-in AI-powered writing assistance tools. Using interviews and participant journals, we discuss the potential of NLG to have significant impact in the creative writing domain--especially with respect to brainstorming, generation of story details, world-building, and research assistance. Experienced writers, more so than amateurs, typically have well-developed systems and methodologies for writing, as well as distinctive voices and target audiences. Our work highlights the challenges in building for these writers; NLG technologies struggle to preserve style and authorial voice, and they lack deep understanding of story contents. In order for AI-powered writing assistants to realize their full potential, it is essential that they take into account the diverse goals and expertise of human writers.