-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback
Authors:
Yuntao Bai,
Saurav Kadavath,
Sandipan Kundu,
Amanda Askell,
Jackson Kernion,
Andy Jones,
Anna Chen,
Anna Goldie,
Azalia Mirhoseini,
Cameron McKinnon,
Carol Chen,
Catherine Olsson,
Christopher Olah,
Danny Hernandez,
Dawn Drain,
Deep Ganguli,
Dustin Li,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Ethan Perez,
Jamie Kerr,
Jared Mueller,
Jeffrey Ladish,
Joshua Landau,
Kamal Ndousse,
Kamile Lukosuite
, et al. (26 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
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 supe…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 15 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models
Authors:
Samuel R. Bowman,
Jeeyoon Hyun,
Ethan Perez,
Edwin Chen,
Craig Pettit,
Scott Heiner,
Kamilė Lukošiūtė,
Amanda Askell,
Andy Jones,
Anna Chen,
Anna Goldie,
Azalia Mirhoseini,
Cameron McKinnon,
Christopher Olah,
Daniela Amodei,
Dario Amodei,
Dawn Drain,
Dustin Li,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Jackson Kernion,
Jamie Kerr,
Jared Mueller,
Jeffrey Ladish,
Joshua Landau,
Kamal Ndousse
, et al. (21 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
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 abou…
▽ More
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 ways it can be studied empirically. We first present an experimental design centered on tasks for which human specialists succeed but unaided humans and current general AI systems fail. We then present a proof-of-concept experiment 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.
△ Less
Submitted 11 November, 2022; v1 submitted 4 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned
Authors:
Deep Ganguli,
Liane Lovitt,
Jackson Kernion,
Amanda Askell,
Yuntao Bai,
Saurav Kadavath,
Ben Mann,
Ethan Perez,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Kamal Ndousse,
Andy Jones,
Sam Bowman,
Anna Chen,
Tom Conerly,
Nova DasSarma,
Dawn Drain,
Nelson Elhage,
Sheer El-Showk,
Stanislav Fort,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Tom Henighan,
Danny Hernandez,
Tristan Hume,
Josh Jacobson,
Scott Johnston
, et al. (11 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We describe our early efforts to red team language models in order to simultaneously discover, measure, and attempt to reduce their potentially harmful outputs. We make three main contributions. First, we investigate scaling behaviors for red teaming across 3 model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and 4 model types: a plain language model (LM); an LM prompted to be helpful, honest, and harmle…
▽ More
We describe our early efforts to red team language models in order to simultaneously discover, measure, and attempt to reduce their potentially harmful outputs. We make three main contributions. First, we investigate scaling behaviors for red teaming across 3 model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and 4 model types: a plain language model (LM); an LM prompted to be helpful, honest, and harmless; an LM with rejection sampling; and a model trained to be helpful and harmless using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). We find that the RLHF models are increasingly difficult to red team as they scale, and we find a flat trend with scale for the other model types. Second, we release our dataset of 38,961 red team attacks for others to analyze and learn from. We provide our own analysis of the data and find a variety of harmful outputs, which range from offensive language to more subtly harmful non-violent unethical outputs. Third, we exhaustively describe our instructions, processes, statistical methodologies, and uncertainty about red teaming. We hope that this transparency accelerates our ability to work together as a community in order to develop shared norms, practices, and technical standards for how to red team language models.
△ Less
Submitted 22 November, 2022; v1 submitted 23 August, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Authors:
Saurav Kadavath,
Tom Conerly,
Amanda Askell,
Tom Henighan,
Dawn Drain,
Ethan Perez,
Nicholas Schiefer,
Zac Hatfield-Dodds,
Nova DasSarma,
Eli Tran-Johnson,
Scott Johnston,
Sheer El-Showk,
Andy Jones,
Nelson Elhage,
Tristan Hume,
Anna Chen,
Yuntao Bai,
Sam Bowman,
Stanislav Fort,
Deep Ganguli,
Danny Hernandez,
Josh Jacobson,
Jackson Kernion,
Shauna Kravec,
Liane Lovitt
, et al. (11 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answe…
▽ More
We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly. We first show that larger models are well-calibrated on diverse multiple choice and true/false questions when they are provided in the right format. Thus we can approach self-evaluation on open-ended sampling tasks by asking models to first propose answers, and then to evaluate the probability "P(True)" that their answers are correct. We find encouraging performance, calibration, and scaling for P(True) on a diverse array of tasks. Performance at self-evaluation further improves when we allow models to consider many of their own samples before predicting the validity of one specific possibility. Next, we investigate whether models can be trained to predict "P(IK)", the probability that "I know" the answer to a question, without reference to any particular proposed answer. Models perform well at predicting P(IK) and partially generalize across tasks, though they struggle with calibration of P(IK) on new tasks. The predicted P(IK) probabilities also increase appropriately in the presence of relevant source materials in the context, and in the presence of hints towards the solution of mathematical word problems. We hope these observations lay the groundwork for training more honest models, and for investigating how honesty generalizes to cases where models are trained on objectives other than the imitation of human writing.
△ Less
Submitted 21 November, 2022; v1 submitted 11 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.