Diane Wan

Zhao Cheng, Diane Wan, Matthew Abueg et al.

Advances in generative AI point towards a new era of personalized applications that perform diverse tasks on behalf of users. While general AI assistants have yet to fully emerge, their potential to share personal data raises significant privacy challenges. This paper introduces CI-Bench, a comprehensive synthetic benchmark for evaluating the ability of AI assistants to protect personal information during model inference. Leveraging the Contextual Integrity framework, our benchmark enables systematic assessment of information flow across important context dimensions, including roles, information types, and transmission principles. We present a novel, scalable, multi-step synthetic data pipeline for generating natural communications, including dialogues and emails. Unlike previous work with smaller, narrowly focused evaluations, we present a novel, scalable, multi-step data pipeline that synthetically generates natural communications, including dialogues and emails, which we use to generate 44 thousand test samples across eight domains. Additionally, we formulate and evaluate a naive AI assistant to demonstrate the need for further study and careful training towards personal assistant tasks. We envision CI-Bench as a valuable tool for guiding future language model development, deployment, system design, and dataset construction, ultimately contributing to the development of AI assistants that align with users' privacy expectations.

Andrew K. Lampinen, Arslan Chaudhry, Stephanie C. Y. Chan et al. · deepmind, stanford

Large language models exhibit exciting capabilities, yet can show surprisingly narrow generalization from finetuning. E.g. they can fail to generalize to simple reversals of relations they are trained on, or fail to make simple logical deductions based on trained information. These failures to generalize factual information from fine-tuning can significantly hinder the reasoning capabilities of these models. On the other hand, language models' in-context learning (ICL) shows different inductive biases and deductive reasoning capabilities. Here, we explore these differences in generalization and deductive reasoning between in-context- and fine-tuning-based learning. To do so, we constructed several novel datasets to evaluate and improve models' abilities to make generalizations over factual information from novel data. These datasets are designed to create clean tests of generalization, by isolating the knowledge in the dataset from that in pretraining. We expose pretrained large models to controlled subsets of the information in these datasets -- either through ICL or fine-tuning -- and evaluate their performance on test sets that require various types of generalization. We find overall that in data-matched settings, ICL can generalize several types of inferences more flexibly than fine-tuning (though we also find some qualifications of prior findings, such as cases when fine-tuning can generalize to reversals embedded in a larger structure of knowledge). We build on these findings to propose a method to enable improved generalization from fine-tuning: adding in-context reasoning traces to finetuning data. We show that this method improves generalization across various splits of our datasets and other benchmarks. Our results have implications for understanding the generalization afforded by different modes of learning in language models, and practically improving their performance.