-
The Responsible Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: A Review of Tools & Resources
Authors:
Shayne Longpre,
Stella Biderman,
Alon Albalak,
Hailey Schoelkopf,
Daniel McDuff,
Sayash Kapoor,
Kevin Klyman,
Kyle Lo,
Gabriel Ilharco,
Nay San,
Maribeth Rauh,
Aviya Skowron,
Bertie Vidgen,
Laura Weidinger,
Arvind Narayanan,
Victor Sanh,
David Adelani,
Percy Liang,
Rishi Bommasani,
Peter Henderson,
Sasha Luccioni,
Yacine Jernite,
Luca Soldaini
Abstract:
Foundation model development attracts a rapidly expanding body of contributors, scientists, and applications. To help shape responsible development practices, we introduce the Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: a growing collection of 250+ tools and resources spanning text, vision, and speech modalities. We draw on a large body of prior work to survey resources (e.g. software, documentation,…
▽ More
Foundation model development attracts a rapidly expanding body of contributors, scientists, and applications. To help shape responsible development practices, we introduce the Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: a growing collection of 250+ tools and resources spanning text, vision, and speech modalities. We draw on a large body of prior work to survey resources (e.g. software, documentation, frameworks, guides, and practical tools) that support informed data selection, processing, and understanding, precise and limitation-aware artifact documentation, efficient model training, advance awareness of the environmental impact from training, careful model evaluation of capabilities, risks, and claims, as well as responsible model release, licensing and deployment practices. We hope this curated collection of resources helps guide more responsible development. The process of curating this list, enabled us to review the AI development ecosystem, revealing what tools are critically missing, misused, or over-used in existing practices. We find that (i) tools for data sourcing, model evaluation, and monitoring are critically under-serving ethical and real-world needs, (ii) evaluations for model safety, capabilities, and environmental impact all lack reproducibility and transparency, (iii) text and particularly English-centric analyses continue to dominate over multilingual and multi-modal analyses, and (iv) evaluation of systems, rather than just models, is needed so that capabilities and impact are assessed in context.
△ Less
Submitted 25 June, 2024; v1 submitted 24 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants
Authors:
Iason Gabriel,
Arianna Manzini,
Geoff Keeling,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Verena Rieser,
Hasan Iqbal,
Nenad Tomašev,
Ira Ktena,
Zachary Kenton,
Mikel Rodriguez,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Sasha Brown,
Canfer Akbulut,
Andrew Trask,
Edward Hughes,
A. Stevie Bergman,
Renee Shelby,
Nahema Marchal,
Conor Griffin,
Juan Mateos-Garcia,
Laura Weidinger,
Winnie Street,
Benjamin Lange,
Alex Ingerman,
Alison Lentz
, et al. (32 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, pro…
▽ More
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.
△ Less
Submitted 28 April, 2024; v1 submitted 24 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models
Authors:
Gemini Team,
Rohan Anil,
Sebastian Borgeaud,
Jean-Baptiste Alayrac,
Jiahui Yu,
Radu Soricut,
Johan Schalkwyk,
Andrew M. Dai,
Anja Hauth,
Katie Millican,
David Silver,
Melvin Johnson,
Ioannis Antonoglou,
Julian Schrittwieser,
Amelia Glaese,
Jilin Chen,
Emily Pitler,
Timothy Lillicrap,
Angeliki Lazaridou,
Orhan Firat,
James Molloy,
Michael Isard,
Paul R. Barham,
Tom Hennigan,
Benjamin Lee
, et al. (1325 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultr…
▽ More
This report introduces a new family of multimodal models, Gemini, that exhibit remarkable capabilities across image, audio, video, and text understanding. The Gemini family consists of Ultra, Pro, and Nano sizes, suitable for applications ranging from complex reasoning tasks to on-device memory-constrained use-cases. Evaluation on a broad range of benchmarks shows that our most-capable Gemini Ultra model advances the state of the art in 30 of 32 of these benchmarks - notably being the first model to achieve human-expert performance on the well-studied exam benchmark MMLU, and improving the state of the art in every one of the 20 multimodal benchmarks we examined. We believe that the new capabilities of the Gemini family in cross-modal reasoning and language understanding will enable a wide variety of use cases. We discuss our approach toward post-training and deploying Gemini models responsibly to users through services including Gemini, Gemini Advanced, Google AI Studio, and Cloud Vertex AI.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2024; v1 submitted 18 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems
Authors:
Laura Weidinger,
Maribeth Rauh,
Nahema Marchal,
Arianna Manzini,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Juan Mateos-Garcia,
Stevie Bergman,
Jackie Kay,
Conor Griffin,
Ben Bariach,
Iason Gabriel,
Verena Rieser,
William Isaac
Abstract:
Generative AI systems produce a range of risks. To ensure the safety of generative AI systems, these risks must be evaluated. In this paper, we make two main contributions toward establishing such evaluations. First, we propose a three-layered framework that takes a structured, sociotechnical approach to evaluating these risks. This framework encompasses capability evaluations, which are the main…
▽ More
Generative AI systems produce a range of risks. To ensure the safety of generative AI systems, these risks must be evaluated. In this paper, we make two main contributions toward establishing such evaluations. First, we propose a three-layered framework that takes a structured, sociotechnical approach to evaluating these risks. This framework encompasses capability evaluations, which are the main current approach to safety evaluation. It then reaches further by building on system safety principles, particularly the insight that context determines whether a given capability may cause harm. To account for relevant context, our framework adds human interaction and systemic impacts as additional layers of evaluation. Second, we survey the current state of safety evaluation of generative AI systems and create a repository of existing evaluations. Three salient evaluation gaps emerge from this analysis. We propose ways forward to closing these gaps, outlining practical steps as well as roles and responsibilities for different actors. Sociotechnical safety evaluation is a tractable approach to the robust and comprehensive safety evaluation of generative AI systems.
△ Less
Submitted 31 October, 2023; v1 submitted 18 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements
Authors:
Amelia Glaese,
Nat McAleese,
Maja Trębacz,
John Aslanides,
Vlad Firoiu,
Timo Ewalds,
Maribeth Rauh,
Laura Weidinger,
Martin Chadwick,
Phoebe Thacker,
Lucy Campbell-Gillingham,
Jonathan Uesato,
Po-Sen Huang,
Ramona Comanescu,
Fan Yang,
Abigail See,
Sumanth Dathathri,
Rory Greig,
Charlie Chen,
Doug Fritz,
Jaume Sanchez Elias,
Richard Green,
Soňa Mokrá,
Nicholas Fernando,
Boxi Wu
, et al. (9 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We present Sparrow, an information-seeking dialogue agent trained to be more helpful, correct, and harmless compared to prompted language model baselines. We use reinforcement learning from human feedback to train our models with two new additions to help human raters judge agent behaviour. First, to make our agent more helpful and harmless, we break down the requirements for good dialogue into na…
▽ More
We present Sparrow, an information-seeking dialogue agent trained to be more helpful, correct, and harmless compared to prompted language model baselines. We use reinforcement learning from human feedback to train our models with two new additions to help human raters judge agent behaviour. First, to make our agent more helpful and harmless, we break down the requirements for good dialogue into natural language rules the agent should follow, and ask raters about each rule separately. We demonstrate that this breakdown enables us to collect more targeted human judgements of agent behaviour and allows for more efficient rule-conditional reward models. Second, our agent provides evidence from sources supporting factual claims when collecting preference judgements over model statements. For factual questions, evidence provided by Sparrow supports the sampled response 78% of the time. Sparrow is preferred more often than baselines while being more resilient to adversarial probing by humans, violating our rules only 8% of the time when probed. Finally, we conduct extensive analyses showing that though our model learns to follow our rules it can exhibit distributional biases.
△ Less
Submitted 28 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Characteristics of Harmful Text: Towards Rigorous Benchmarking of Language Models
Authors:
Maribeth Rauh,
John Mellor,
Jonathan Uesato,
Po-Sen Huang,
Johannes Welbl,
Laura Weidinger,
Sumanth Dathathri,
Amelia Glaese,
Geoffrey Irving,
Iason Gabriel,
William Isaac,
Lisa Anne Hendricks
Abstract:
Large language models produce human-like text that drive a growing number of applications. However, recent literature and, increasingly, real world observations, have demonstrated that these models can generate language that is toxic, biased, untruthful or otherwise harmful. Though work to evaluate language model harms is under way, translating foresight about which harms may arise into rigorous b…
▽ More
Large language models produce human-like text that drive a growing number of applications. However, recent literature and, increasingly, real world observations, have demonstrated that these models can generate language that is toxic, biased, untruthful or otherwise harmful. Though work to evaluate language model harms is under way, translating foresight about which harms may arise into rigorous benchmarks is not straightforward. To facilitate this translation, we outline six ways of characterizing harmful text which merit explicit consideration when designing new benchmarks. We then use these characteristics as a lens to identify trends and gaps in existing benchmarks. Finally, we apply them in a case study of the Perspective API, a toxicity classifier that is widely used in harm benchmarks. Our characteristics provide one piece of the bridge that translates between foresight and effective evaluation.
△ Less
Submitted 28 October, 2022; v1 submitted 16 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
-
MuZero with Self-competition for Rate Control in VP9 Video Compression
Authors:
Amol Mandhane,
Anton Zhernov,
Maribeth Rauh,
Chenjie Gu,
Miaosen Wang,
Flora Xue,
Wendy Shang,
Derek Pang,
Rene Claus,
Ching-Han Chiang,
Cheng Chen,
Jingning Han,
Angie Chen,
Daniel J. Mankowitz,
Jackson Broshear,
Julian Schrittwieser,
Thomas Hubert,
Oriol Vinyals,
Timothy Mann
Abstract:
Video streaming usage has seen a significant rise as entertainment, education, and business increasingly rely on online video. Optimizing video compression has the potential to increase access and quality of content to users, and reduce energy use and costs overall. In this paper, we present an application of the MuZero algorithm to the challenge of video compression. Specifically, we target the p…
▽ More
Video streaming usage has seen a significant rise as entertainment, education, and business increasingly rely on online video. Optimizing video compression has the potential to increase access and quality of content to users, and reduce energy use and costs overall. In this paper, we present an application of the MuZero algorithm to the challenge of video compression. Specifically, we target the problem of learning a rate control policy to select the quantization parameters (QP) in the encoding process of libvpx, an open source VP9 video compression library widely used by popular video-on-demand (VOD) services. We treat this as a sequential decision making problem to maximize the video quality with an episodic constraint imposed by the target bitrate. Notably, we introduce a novel self-competition based reward mechanism to solve constrained RL with variable constraint satisfaction difficulty, which is challenging for existing constrained RL methods. We demonstrate that the MuZero-based rate control achieves an average 6.28% reduction in size of the compressed videos for the same delivered video quality level (measured as PSNR BD-rate) compared to libvpx's two-pass VBR rate control policy, while having better constraint satisfaction behavior.
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher
Authors:
Jack W. Rae,
Sebastian Borgeaud,
Trevor Cai,
Katie Millican,
Jordan Hoffmann,
Francis Song,
John Aslanides,
Sarah Henderson,
Roman Ring,
Susannah Young,
Eliza Rutherford,
Tom Hennigan,
Jacob Menick,
Albin Cassirer,
Richard Powell,
George van den Driessche,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Maribeth Rauh,
Po-Sen Huang,
Amelia Glaese,
Johannes Welbl,
Sumanth Dathathri,
Saffron Huang,
Jonathan Uesato,
John Mellor
, et al. (55 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Language modelling provides a step towards intelligent communication systems by harnessing large repositories of written human knowledge to better predict and understand the world. In this paper, we present an analysis of Transformer-based language model performance across a wide range of model scales -- from models with tens of millions of parameters up to a 280 billion parameter model called Gop…
▽ More
Language modelling provides a step towards intelligent communication systems by harnessing large repositories of written human knowledge to better predict and understand the world. In this paper, we present an analysis of Transformer-based language model performance across a wide range of model scales -- from models with tens of millions of parameters up to a 280 billion parameter model called Gopher. These models are evaluated on 152 diverse tasks, achieving state-of-the-art performance across the majority. Gains from scale are largest in areas such as reading comprehension, fact-checking, and the identification of toxic language, but logical and mathematical reasoning see less benefit. We provide a holistic analysis of the training dataset and model's behaviour, covering the intersection of model scale with bias and toxicity. Finally we discuss the application of language models to AI safety and the mitigation of downstream harms.
△ Less
Submitted 21 January, 2022; v1 submitted 8 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Authors:
Laura Weidinger,
John Mellor,
Maribeth Rauh,
Conor Griffin,
Jonathan Uesato,
Po-Sen Huang,
Myra Cheng,
Mia Glaese,
Borja Balle,
Atoosa Kasirzadeh,
Zac Kenton,
Sasha Brown,
Will Hawkins,
Tom Stepleton,
Courtney Biles,
Abeba Birhane,
Julia Haas,
Laura Rimell,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
William Isaac,
Sean Legassick,
Geoffrey Irving,
Iason Gabriel
Abstract:
This paper aims to help structure the risk landscape associated with large-scale Language Models (LMs). In order to foster advances in responsible innovation, an in-depth understanding of the potential risks posed by these models is needed. A wide range of established and anticipated risks are analysed in detail, drawing on multidisciplinary expertise and literature from computer science, linguist…
▽ More
This paper aims to help structure the risk landscape associated with large-scale Language Models (LMs). In order to foster advances in responsible innovation, an in-depth understanding of the potential risks posed by these models is needed. A wide range of established and anticipated risks are analysed in detail, drawing on multidisciplinary expertise and literature from computer science, linguistics, and social sciences.
We outline six specific risk areas: I. Discrimination, Exclusion and Toxicity, II. Information Hazards, III. Misinformation Harms, V. Malicious Uses, V. Human-Computer Interaction Harms, VI. Automation, Access, and Environmental Harms. The first area concerns the perpetuation of stereotypes, unfair discrimination, exclusionary norms, toxic language, and lower performance by social group for LMs. The second focuses on risks from private data leaks or LMs correctly inferring sensitive information. The third addresses risks arising from poor, false or misleading information including in sensitive domains, and knock-on risks such as the erosion of trust in shared information. The fourth considers risks from actors who try to use LMs to cause harm. The fifth focuses on risks specific to LLMs used to underpin conversational agents that interact with human users, including unsafe use, manipulation or deception. The sixth discusses the risk of environmental harm, job automation, and other challenges that may have a disparate effect on different social groups or communities.
In total, we review 21 risks in-depth. We discuss the points of origin of different risks and point to potential mitigation approaches. Lastly, we discuss organisational responsibilities in implementing mitigations, and the role of collaboration and participation. We highlight directions for further research, particularly on expanding the toolkit for assessing and evaluating the outlined risks in LMs.
△ Less
Submitted 8 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.