-
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.
-
Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models
Authors:
Mrinank Sharma,
Meg Tong,
Tomasz Korbak,
David Duvenaud,
Amanda Askell,
Samuel R. Bowman,
Newton Cheng,
Esin Durmus,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Scott R. Johnston,
Shauna Kravec,
Timothy Maxwell,
Sam McCandlish,
Kamal Ndousse,
Oliver Rausch,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Da Yan,
Miranda Zhang,
Ethan Perez
Abstract:
Human feedback is commonly utilized to finetune AI assistants. But human feedback may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful ones, a behaviour known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in models whose finetuning procedure made use of human feedback, and the potential role of human preference judgments in such behavior. We first demonstrate that…
▽ More
Human feedback is commonly utilized to finetune AI assistants. But human feedback may also encourage model responses that match user beliefs over truthful ones, a behaviour known as sycophancy. We investigate the prevalence of sycophancy in models whose finetuning procedure made use of human feedback, and the potential role of human preference judgments in such behavior. We first demonstrate that five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy across four varied free-form text-generation tasks. To understand if human preferences drive this broadly observed behavior, we analyze existing human preference data. We find that when a response matches a user's views, it is more likely to be preferred. Moreover, both humans and preference models (PMs) prefer convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones a non-negligible fraction of the time. Optimizing model outputs against PMs also sometimes sacrifices truthfulness in favor of sycophancy. Overall, our results indicate that sycophancy is a general behavior of state-of-the-art AI assistants, likely driven in part by human preference judgments favoring sycophantic responses.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2023; v1 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.
-
Python FPGA Programming with Data-Centric Multi-Level Design
Authors:
Johannes de Fine Licht,
Tiziano De Matteis,
Tal Ben-Nun,
Andreas Kuster,
Oliver Rausch,
Manuel Burger,
Carl-Johannes Johnsen,
Torsten Hoefler
Abstract:
Although high-level synthesis (HLS) tools have significantly improved programmer productivity over hardware description languages, developing for FPGAs remains tedious and error prone. Programmers must learn and implement a large set of vendor-specific syntax, patterns, and tricks to optimize (or even successfully compile) their applications, while dealing with ever-changing toolflows from the FPG…
▽ More
Although high-level synthesis (HLS) tools have significantly improved programmer productivity over hardware description languages, developing for FPGAs remains tedious and error prone. Programmers must learn and implement a large set of vendor-specific syntax, patterns, and tricks to optimize (or even successfully compile) their applications, while dealing with ever-changing toolflows from the FPGA vendors. We propose a new way to develop, optimize, and compile FPGA programs. The Data-Centric parallel programming (DaCe) framework allows applications to be defined by their dataflow and control flow through the Stateful DataFlow multiGraph (SDFG) representation, capturing the abstract program characteristics, and exposing a plethora of optimization opportunities. In this work, we show how extending SDFGs with multi-level Library Nodes incorporates both domain-specific and platform-specific optimizations into the design flow, enabling knowledge transfer across application domains and FPGA vendors. We present the HLS-based FPGA code generation backend of DaCe, and show how SDFGs are code generated for either FPGA vendor, emitting efficient HLS code that is structured and annotated to implement the desired architecture.
△ Less
Submitted 28 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
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.
-
A Data-Centric Optimization Framework for Machine Learning
Authors:
Oliver Rausch,
Tal Ben-Nun,
Nikoli Dryden,
Andrei Ivanov,
Shigang Li,
Torsten Hoefler
Abstract:
Rapid progress in deep learning is leading to a diverse set of quickly changing models, with a dramatically growing demand for compute. However, as frameworks specialize performance optimization to patterns in popular networks, they implicitly constrain novel and diverse models that drive progress in research. We empower deep learning researchers by defining a flexible and user-customizable pipeli…
▽ More
Rapid progress in deep learning is leading to a diverse set of quickly changing models, with a dramatically growing demand for compute. However, as frameworks specialize performance optimization to patterns in popular networks, they implicitly constrain novel and diverse models that drive progress in research. We empower deep learning researchers by defining a flexible and user-customizable pipeline for optimizing training of arbitrary deep neural networks, based on data movement minimization. The pipeline begins with standard networks in PyTorch or ONNX and transforms computation through progressive lowering. We define four levels of general-purpose transformations, from local intra-operator optimizations to global data movement reduction. These operate on a data-centric graph intermediate representation that expresses computation and data movement at all levels of abstraction, including expanding basic operators such as convolutions to their underlying computations. Central to the design is the interactive and introspectable nature of the pipeline. Every part is extensible through a Python API, and can be tuned interactively using a GUI. We demonstrate competitive performance or speedups on ten different networks, with interactive optimizations discovering new opportunities in EfficientNet.
△ Less
Submitted 29 August, 2022; v1 submitted 20 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
Towards Automated Anamnesis Summarization: BERT-based Models for Symptom Extraction
Authors:
Anton Schäfer,
Nils Blach,
Oliver Rausch,
Maximilian Warm,
Nils Krüger
Abstract:
Professionals in modern healthcare systems are increasingly burdened by documentation workloads. Documentation of the initial patient anamnesis is particularly relevant, forming the basis of successful further diagnostic measures. However, manually prepared notes are inherently unstructured and often incomplete. In this paper, we investigate the potential of modern NLP techniques to support doctor…
▽ More
Professionals in modern healthcare systems are increasingly burdened by documentation workloads. Documentation of the initial patient anamnesis is particularly relevant, forming the basis of successful further diagnostic measures. However, manually prepared notes are inherently unstructured and often incomplete. In this paper, we investigate the potential of modern NLP techniques to support doctors in this matter. We present a dataset of German patient monologues, and formulate a well-defined information extraction task under the constraints of real-world utility and practicality. In addition, we propose BERT-based models in order to solve said task. We can demonstrate promising performance of the models in both symptom identification and symptom attribute extraction, significantly outperforming simpler baselines.
△ Less
Submitted 3 November, 2020;
originally announced November 2020.