aifaq.wtf

Our investigation into AdVon Commerce, the AI contractor at the heart of scandals at USA Today and Sports Illustrated.

AI is potentially transformative. Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends on whether we set the right rules.

Following a Gazetteer SF inquiry, the neighborhood news site publicly confirmed its use of artificial intelligence to power an 'In-House Writing Collective'

Feed PDFs, URLs, Slides, YouTube, GitHub, and more into Vision-Language models with one line of code ⚡ - emcf/thepipe

Since the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT, generative language models have attracted extensive public attention. The increased usage has highlighted generative models' broad utility, but also revealed several forms of embedded bias. Some is induced by the pre-training corpus; but additional bias specific to generative models arises from the use of subjective fine-tuning to avoid generating harmful content. Fine-tuning bias may come from individual engineers and company policies, and affects which prompts the model chooses to refuse. In this experiment, we characterize ChatGPT's refusal behavior using a black-box attack. We first query ChatGPT with a variety of offensive and benign prompts (n=1,706), then manually label each response as compliance or refusal. Manual examination of responses reveals that refusal is not cleanly binary, and lies on a continuum; as such, we map several different kinds of responses to a binary of compliance or refusal. The small manually-labeled dataset is used to train a refusal classifier, which achieves an accuracy of 96%. Second, we use this refusal classifier to bootstrap a larger (n=10,000) dataset adapted from the Quora Insincere Questions dataset. With this machine-labeled data, we train a prompt classifier to predict whether ChatGPT will refuse a given question, without seeing ChatGPT's response. This prompt classifier achieves 76% accuracy on a test set of manually labeled questions (n=985). We examine our classifiers and the prompt n-grams that are most predictive of either compliance or refusal. Our datasets and code are available at https://github.com/maxwellreuter/chatgpt-refusals.

OpenELM mirrors efforts by Microsoft to make useful small AI language models that run locally.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasing in capability and popularity, propelling their application in new domains -- including as replacements for human participants in computational social science, user testing, annotation tasks, and more. Traditionally, in all of these settings survey distributors are careful to find representative samples of the human population to ensure the validity of their results and understand potential demographic differences. This means in order to be a suitable replacement, LLMs will need to be able to capture the influence of positionality (i.e., relevance of social identities like gender and race). However, we show that there are two inherent limitations in the way current LLMs are trained that prevent this. We argue analytically for why LLMs are doomed to both misportray and flatten the representations of demographic groups, then empirically show this to be true on 4 LLMs through a series of human studies with 3200 participants across 16 demographic identities. We also discuss a third consideration about how identity prompts can essentialize identities. Throughout, we connect each of these limitations to a pernicious history that shows why each is harmful for marginalized demographic groups. Overall, we urge caution in use cases where LLMs are intended to replace human participants whose identities are relevant to the task at hand. At the same time, in cases where the goal is to supplement rather than replace (e.g., pilot studies), we provide empirically-better inference-time techniques to reduce, but not remove, these harms.

Workers in Africa have been exploited first by being paid a pittance to help make chatbots, then by having their own words become AI-ese. Plus, new AI gadgets are coming for your smartphones

As I previously warned, artificial intelligence companies are running out of data. A Wall Street Journal piece from this week has sounded the alarm that some believe AI models will run out of "high-quality text-based data" within the next two years in what an AI researcher called "a frontier research

Large language models (LLMs) often generate content that contains factual errors when responding to fact-seeking prompts on open-ended topics. To benchmark a model's long-form factuality in open domains, we first use GPT-4 to generate LongFact, a prompt set comprising thousands of questions spanning 38 topics. We then propose that LLM agents can be used as automated evaluators for long-form factuality through a method which we call Search-Augmented Factuality Evaluator (SAFE). SAFE utilizes an LLM to break down a long-form response into a set of individual facts and to evaluate the accuracy of each fact using a multi-step reasoning process comprising sending search queries to Google Search and determining whether a fact is supported by the search results. Furthermore, we propose extending F1 score as an aggregated metric for long-form factuality. To do so, we balance the percentage of supported facts in a response (precision) with the percentage of provided facts relative to a hyperparameter representing a user's preferred response length (recall). Empirically, we demonstrate that LLM agents can outperform crowdsourced human annotators - on a set of ~16k individual facts, SAFE agrees with crowdsourced human annotators 72% of the time, and on a random subset of 100 disagreement cases, SAFE wins 76% of the time. At the same time, SAFE is more than 20 times cheaper than human annotators. We also benchmark thirteen language models on LongFact across four model families (Gemini, GPT, Claude, and PaLM-2), finding that larger language models generally achieve better long-form factuality. LongFact, SAFE, and all experimental code are available at https://github.com/google-deepmind/long-form-factuality.

How well can large language models (LLMs) generate summaries? We develop new datasets and conduct human evaluation experiments to evaluate the zero-shot generation capability of LLMs across five distinct summarization tasks. Our findings indicate a clear preference among human evaluators for LLM-generated summaries over human-written summaries and summaries generated by fine-tuned models. Specifically, LLM-generated summaries exhibit better factual consistency and fewer instances of extrinsic hallucinations. Due to the satisfactory performance of LLMs in summarization tasks (even surpassing the benchmark of reference summaries), we believe that most conventional works in the field of text summarization are no longer necessary in the era of LLMs. However, we recognize that there are still some directions worth exploring, such as the creation of novel datasets with higher quality and more reliable evaluation methods.

Despite ethical concerns, nearly 70% of newsroom staffers recruited for an Associated Press survey say they’re using generative AI to create content