-
Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences
Authors:
Michiel A. Bakker,
Martin J. Chadwick,
Hannah R. Sheahan,
Michael Henry Tessler,
Lucy Campbell-Gillingham,
Jan Balaguer,
Nat McAleese,
Amelia Glaese,
John Aslanides,
Matthew M. Botvinick,
Christopher Summerfield
Abstract:
Recent work in large language modeling (LLMs) has used fine-tuning to align outputs with the preferences of a prototypical user. This work assumes that human preferences are static and homogeneous across individuals, so that aligning to a a single "generic" user will confer more general alignment. Here, we embrace the heterogeneity of human preferences to consider a different challenge: how might…
▽ More
Recent work in large language modeling (LLMs) has used fine-tuning to align outputs with the preferences of a prototypical user. This work assumes that human preferences are static and homogeneous across individuals, so that aligning to a a single "generic" user will confer more general alignment. Here, we embrace the heterogeneity of human preferences to consider a different challenge: how might a machine help people with diverse views find agreement? We fine-tune a 70 billion parameter LLM to generate statements that maximize the expected approval for a group of people with potentially diverse opinions. Human participants provide written opinions on thousands of questions touching on moral and political issues (e.g., "should we raise taxes on the rich?"), and rate the LLM's generated candidate consensus statements for agreement and quality. A reward model is then trained to predict individual preferences, enabling it to quantify and rank consensus statements in terms of their appeal to the overall group, defined according to different aggregation (social welfare) functions. The model produces consensus statements that are preferred by human users over those from prompted LLMs (>70%) and significantly outperforms a tight fine-tuned baseline that lacks the final ranking step. Further, our best model's consensus statements are preferred over the best human-generated opinions (>65%). We find that when we silently constructed consensus statements from only a subset of group members, those who were excluded were more likely to dissent, revealing the sensitivity of the consensus to individual contributions. These results highlight the potential to use LLMs to help groups of humans align their values with one another.
△ Less
Submitted 27 November, 2022;
originally announced November 2022.
-
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.
-
Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes
Authors:
Jacob Menick,
Maja Trebacz,
Vladimir Mikulik,
John Aslanides,
Francis Song,
Martin Chadwick,
Mia Glaese,
Susannah Young,
Lucy Campbell-Gillingham,
Geoffrey Irving,
Nat McAleese
Abstract:
Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids i…
▽ More
Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.
△ Less
Submitted 21 March, 2022;
originally announced March 2022.
-
HCMD-zero: Learning Value Aligned Mechanisms from Data
Authors:
Jan Balaguer,
Raphael Koster,
Ari Weinstein,
Lucy Campbell-Gillingham,
Christopher Summerfield,
Matthew Botvinick,
Andrea Tacchetti
Abstract:
Artificial learning agents are mediating a larger and larger number of interactions among humans, firms, and organizations, and the intersection between mechanism design and machine learning has been heavily investigated in recent years. However, mechanism design methods often make strong assumptions on how participants behave (e.g. rationality), on the kind of knowledge designers have access to a…
▽ More
Artificial learning agents are mediating a larger and larger number of interactions among humans, firms, and organizations, and the intersection between mechanism design and machine learning has been heavily investigated in recent years. However, mechanism design methods often make strong assumptions on how participants behave (e.g. rationality), on the kind of knowledge designers have access to a priori (e.g. access to strong baseline mechanisms), or on what the goal of the mechanism should be (e.g. total welfare). Here we introduce HCMD-zero, a general purpose method to construct mechanisms making none of these three assumptions. HCMD-zero learns to mediate interactions among participants and adjusts the mechanism parameters to make itself more likely to be preferred by participants. It does so by remaining engaged in an electoral contest with copies of itself, thereby accessing direct feedback from participants. We test our method on a stylized resource allocation game that highlights the tension between productivity, equality and the temptation to free ride. HCMD-zero produces a mechanism that is preferred by human participants over a strong baseline, it does so automatically, without requiring prior knowledge, and using human behavioral trajectories sparingly and effectively. Our analysis shows HCMD-zero consistently makes the mechanism policy more and more likely to be preferred by human participants over the course of training, and that it results in a mechanism with an interpretable and intuitive policy.
△ Less
Submitted 20 May, 2022; v1 submitted 21 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Human-centered mechanism design with Democratic AI
Authors:
Raphael Koster,
Jan Balaguer,
Andrea Tacchetti,
Ari Weinstein,
Tina Zhu,
Oliver Hauser,
Duncan Williams,
Lucy Campbell-Gillingham,
Phoebe Thacker,
Matthew Botvinick,
Christopher Summerfield
Abstract:
Building artificial intelligence (AI) that aligns with human values is an unsolved problem. Here, we developed a human-in-the-loop research pipeline called Democratic AI, in which reinforcement learning is used to design a social mechanism that humans prefer by majority. A large group of humans played an online investment game that involved deciding whether to keep a monetary endowment or to share…
▽ More
Building artificial intelligence (AI) that aligns with human values is an unsolved problem. Here, we developed a human-in-the-loop research pipeline called Democratic AI, in which reinforcement learning is used to design a social mechanism that humans prefer by majority. A large group of humans played an online investment game that involved deciding whether to keep a monetary endowment or to share it with others for collective benefit. Shared revenue was returned to players under two different redistribution mechanisms, one designed by the AI and the other by humans. The AI discovered a mechanism that redressed initial wealth imbalance, sanctioned free riders, and successfully won the majority vote. By optimizing for human preferences, Democratic AI may be a promising method for value-aligned policy innovation.
△ Less
Submitted 27 January, 2022;
originally announced January 2022.
