Search Results for author:
Found 6 papers, 5 papers with code
Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training
We find that such backdoor behavior can be made persistent, so that it is not removed by standard safety training techniques, including supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and adversarial training (eliciting unsafe behavior and then training to remove it).
Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
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).
Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning
As large language models (LLMs) perform more difficult tasks, it becomes harder to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior.
The Capacity for Moral Self-Correction in Large Language Models
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.
Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations
We also find some of the first examples of inverse scaling in RL from Human Feedback (RLHF), where more RLHF makes LMs worse.
Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback
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.
