Leila Khalatbari

Dieuwke Hupkes, Mario Giulianelli, Verna Dankers et al. · amazon-science, cambridge

The ability to generalise well is one of the primary desiderata of natural language processing (NLP). Yet, what 'good generalisation' entails and how it should be evaluated is not well understood, nor are there any evaluation standards for generalisation. In this paper, we lay the groundwork to address both of these issues. We present a taxonomy for characterising and understanding generalisation research in NLP. Our taxonomy is based on an extensive literature review of generalisation research, and contains five axes along which studies can differ: their main motivation, the type of generalisation they investigate, the type of data shift they consider, the source of this data shift, and the locus of the shift within the modelling pipeline. We use our taxonomy to classify over 400 papers that test generalisation, for a total of more than 600 individual experiments. Considering the results of this review, we present an in-depth analysis that maps out the current state of generalisation research in NLP, and we make recommendations for which areas might deserve attention in the future. Along with this paper, we release a webpage where the results of our review can be dynamically explored, and which we intend to update as new NLP generalisation studies are published. With this work, we aim to take steps towards making state-of-the-art generalisation testing the new status quo in NLP.

Yejin Bang, Nayeon Lee, Tiezheng Yu et al.

Considerable advancements have been made in various NLP tasks based on the impressive power of large language models (LLMs) and many NLP applications are deployed in our daily lives. In this work, we challenge the capability of LLMs with the new task of Ethical Quandary Generative Question Answering. Ethical quandary questions are more challenging to address because multiple conflicting answers may exist to a single quandary. We explore the current capability of LLMs in providing an answer with a deliberative exchange of different perspectives to an ethical quandary, in the approach of Socratic philosophy, instead of providing a closed answer like an oracle. We propose a model that searches for different ethical principles applicable to the ethical quandary and generates an answer conditioned on the chosen principles through prompt-based few-shot learning. We also discuss the remaining challenges and ethical issues involved in this task and suggest the direction toward developing responsible NLP systems by incorporating human values explicitly.

Leila Khalatbari, Yejin Bang, Dan Su et al.

Conversational models that are generative and open-domain are particularly susceptible to generating unsafe content since they are trained on web-based social data. Prior approaches to mitigating this issue have drawbacks, such as disrupting the flow of conversation, limited generalization to unseen toxic input contexts, and sacrificing the quality of the dialogue for the sake of safety. In this paper, we present a novel framework, named "LOT" (Learn NOT to), that employs a contrastive loss to enhance generalization by learning from both positive and negative training signals. Our approach differs from the standard contrastive learning framework in that it automatically obtains positive and negative signals from the safe and unsafe language distributions that have been learned beforehand. The LOT framework utilizes divergence to steer the generations away from the unsafe subspace and towards the safe subspace while sustaining the flow of conversation. Our approach is memory and time-efficient during decoding and effectively reduces toxicity while preserving engagingness and fluency. Empirical results indicate that LOT reduces toxicity by up to four-fold while achieving four to six-fold higher rates of engagingness and fluency compared to baseline models. Our findings are further corroborated by human evaluation.

Samuel Cahyawijaya, Delong Chen, Yejin Bang et al.

The widespread application of LLMs across various tasks and fields has necessitated the alignment of these models with human values and preferences. Given various approaches of human value alignment, there is an urgent need to understand the scope and nature of human values injected into these LLMs before their deployment and adoption. We propose UniVaR, a high-dimensional neural representation of symbolic human value distributions in LLMs, orthogonal to model architecture and training data. This is a continuous and scalable representation, self-supervised from the value-relevant output of 8 LLMs and evaluated on 15 open-source and commercial LLMs. Through UniVaR, we visualize and explore how LLMs prioritize different values in 25 languages and cultures, shedding light on complex interplay between human values and language modeling.

Yoshua Bengio, Sören Mindermann, Daniel Privitera et al. · eth-zurich, mit

The first International AI Safety Report comprehensively synthesizes the current evidence on the capabilities, risks, and safety of advanced AI systems. The report was mandated by the nations attending the AI Safety Summit in Bletchley, UK. Thirty nations, the UN, the OECD, and the EU each nominated a representative to the report's Expert Advisory Panel. A total of 100 AI experts contributed, representing diverse perspectives and disciplines. Led by the report's Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content.

Yoshua Bengio, Sören Mindermann, Daniel Privitera et al. · eth-zurich

This is the interim publication of the first International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI. The report synthesises the scientific understanding of general-purpose AI -- AI that can perform a wide variety of tasks -- with a focus on understanding and managing its risks. A diverse group of 75 AI experts contributed to this report, including an international Expert Advisory Panel nominated by 30 countries, the EU, and the UN. Led by the Chair, these independent experts collectively had full discretion over the report's content. The final report is available at arXiv:2501.17805

David Haslett, Linus Ta-Lun Huang, Leila Khalatbari et al.

As large language models increasingly mediate access to information and facilitate decision-making, they are becoming instruments in soft power competitions between global actors such as the United States and China. So far, language models seem to be aligned with the values of Western countries, but evidence for this ethical bias comes mostly from models made by American companies. The current crop of state-of-the-art models includes several made in China, so we conducted the first large-scale investigation of how models made in China and the USA align with people from China and the USA. We elicited responses to the Moral Foundations Questionnaire 2.0 and the World Values Survey from ten Chinese models and ten American models, and we compared their responses to responses from thousands of Chinese and American people. We found that all models respond to both surveys more like American people than like Chinese people. This skew toward American values is only slightly mitigated when prompting the models in Chinese or imposing a Chinese persona on the models. These findings have important implications for a near future in which large language models generate much of the content people consume and shape normative influence in geopolitics.