Search Results for author:
Found 16 papers, 8 papers with code
Specific versus General Principles for Constitutional AI
Constitutional AI offers an alternative, replacing human feedback with feedback from AI models conditioned only on a list of written principles.
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.
Measuring Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models
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.
In-context Learning and Induction Heads
In this work, we present preliminary and indirect evidence for a hypothesis that induction heads might constitute the mechanism for the majority of all "in-context learning" in large transformer models (i. e. decreasing loss at increasing token indices).
Toy Models of Superposition
Neural networks often pack many unrelated concepts into a single neuron - a puzzling phenomenon known as 'polysemanticity' which makes interpretability much more challenging.
Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned
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.
Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
We study whether language models can evaluate the validity of their own claims and predict which questions they will be able to answer correctly.
Scaling Laws and Interpretability of Learning from Repeated Data
To do this, we train a family of models where most of the data is unique but a small fraction of it is repeated many times.
Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
We apply preference modeling and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to finetune language models to act as helpful and harmless assistants.
A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment
We find that the benefits from modest interventions increase with model size, generalize to a variety of alignment evaluations, and do not compromise the performance of large models.
Scaling Laws for Transfer
When we do the same for models pre-trained on a large language dataset, the slope in performance gains is merely reduced rather than going to zero.
Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modeling
The optimal model size also depends on the compute budget through a power-law, with exponents that are nearly universal across all data domains.
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
By contrast, humans can generally perform a new language task from only a few examples or from simple instructions - something which current NLP systems still largely struggle to do.
Ranked #1 on
Question Answering
on CoQA
(Overall metric)
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
We study empirical scaling laws for language model performance on the cross-entropy loss.
