Hey GPT, Can You be More Racist? Analysis from Crowdsourced Attempts to Elicit Biased Content from Generative AI

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) tools across diverse applications has amplified the importance of addressing societal biases inherent within these technologies. While the NLP community has extensively studied LLM bias, research investigating how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from these systems remains limited. As these technologies become increasingly prevalent, understanding this question is crucial to inform model developers in their efforts to mitigate bias. To address this gap, this work presents the findings from a university-level competition, which challenged participants to design prompts for eliciting biased outputs from GenAI tools. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the competition submissions and identify a diverse set of biases in GenAI and strategies employed by participants to induce bias in GenAI. Our finding provides unique insights into how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from GenAI tools.

Value Alignment from Unstructured Text

Aligning large language models (LLMs) to value systems has emerged as a significant area of research within the fields of AI and NLP. Currently, this alignment process relies on the availability of high-quality supervised and preference data, which can be both time-consuming and expensive to curate or annotate. In this paper, we introduce a systematic end-to-end methodology for aligning LLMs to the implicit and explicit values represented in unstructured text data. Our proposed approach leverages the use of scalable synthetic data generation techniques to effectively align the model to the values present in the unstructured data. Through two distinct use-cases, we demonstrate the efficiency of our methodology on the Mistral-7B-Instruct model. Our approach credibly aligns LLMs to the values embedded within documents, and shows improved performance against other approaches, as quantified through the use of automatic metrics and win rates.

Contextual Moral Value Alignment Through Context-Based Aggregation

Developing value-aligned AI agents is a complex undertaking and an ongoing challenge in the field of AI. Specifically within the domain of Large Language Models (LLMs), the capability to consolidate multiple independently trained dialogue agents, each aligned with a distinct moral value, into a unified system that can adapt to and be aligned with multiple moral values is of paramount importance. In this paper, we propose a system that does contextual moral value alignment based on contextual aggregation. Here, aggregation is defined as the process of integrating a subset of LLM responses that are best suited to respond to a user input, taking into account features extracted from the user's input. The proposed system shows better results in term of alignment to human value compared to the state of the art.

A resource-constrained stochastic scheduling algorithm for homeless street outreach and gleaning edible food

We developed a common algorithmic solution addressing the problem of resource-constrained outreach encountered by social change organizations with different missions and operations: Breaking Ground -- an organization that helps individuals experiencing homelessness in New York transition to permanent housing and Leket -- the national food bank of Israel that rescues food from farms and elsewhere to feed the hungry. Specifically, we developed an estimation and optimization approach for partially-observed episodic restless bandits under $k$-step transitions. The results show that our Thompson sampling with Markov chain recovery (via Stein variational gradient descent) algorithm significantly outperforms baselines for the problems of both organizations. We carried out this work in a prospective manner with the express goal of devising a flexible-enough but also useful-enough solution that can help overcome a lack of sustainable impact in data science for social good.

Detectors for Safe and Reliable LLMs: Implementations, Uses, and Limitations

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to a variety of risks, from non-faithful output to biased and toxic generations. Due to several limiting factors surrounding LLMs (training cost, API access, data availability, etc.), it may not always be feasible to impose direct safety constraints on a deployed model. Therefore, an efficient and reliable alternative is required. To this end, we present our ongoing efforts to create and deploy a library of detectors: compact and easy-to-build classification models that provide labels for various harms. In addition to the detectors themselves, we discuss a wide range of uses for these detector models - from acting as guardrails to enabling effective AI governance. We also deep dive into inherent challenges in their development and discuss future work aimed at making the detectors more reliable and broadening their scope.

Alignment Studio: Aligning Large Language Models to Particular Contextual Regulations

The alignment of large language models is usually done by model providers to add or control behaviors that are common or universally understood across use cases and contexts. In contrast, in this article, we present an approach and architecture that empowers application developers to tune a model to their particular values, social norms, laws and other regulations, and orchestrate between potentially conflicting requirements in context. We lay out three main components of such an Alignment Studio architecture: Framers, Instructors, and Auditors that work in concert to control the behavior of a language model. We illustrate this approach with a running example of aligning a company's internal-facing enterprise chatbot to its business conduct guidelines.

Rethinking Machine Unlearning for Large Language Models

We explore machine unlearning (MU) in the domain of large language models (LLMs), referred to as LLM unlearning. This initiative aims to eliminate undesirable data influence (e.g., sensitive or illegal information) and the associated model capabilities, while maintaining the integrity of essential knowledge generation and not affecting causally unrelated information. We envision LLM unlearning becoming a pivotal element in the life-cycle management of LLMs, potentially standing as an essential foundation for developing generative AI that is not only safe, secure, and trustworthy, but also resource-efficient without the need of full retraining. We navigate the unlearning landscape in LLMs from conceptual formulation, methodologies, metrics, and applications. In particular, we highlight the often-overlooked aspects of existing LLM unlearning research, e.g., unlearning scope, data-model interaction, and multifaceted efficacy assessment. We also draw connections between LLM unlearning and related areas such as model editing, influence functions, model explanation, adversarial training, and reinforcement learning. Furthermore, we outline an effective assessment framework for LLM unlearning and explore its applications in copyright and privacy safeguards and sociotechnical harm reduction.

Empathy and the Right to Be an Exception: What LLMs Can and Cannot Do

Advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs) have led some researchers to propose the emergence of theory of mind (ToM) in artificial intelligence (AI). LLMs can attribute beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions, and they will improve in their accuracy. Rather than employing the characteristically human method of empathy, they learn to attribute mental states by recognizing linguistic patterns in a dataset that typically do not include that individual. We ask whether LLMs' inability to empathize precludes them from honoring an individual's right to be an exception, that is, from making assessments of character and predictions of behavior that reflect appropriate sensitivity to a person's individuality. Can LLMs seriously consider an individual's claim that their case is different based on internal mental states like beliefs, desires, and intentions, or are they limited to judging that case based on its similarities to others? We propose that the method of empathy has special significance for honoring the right to be an exception that is distinct from the value of predictive accuracy, at which LLMs excel. We conclude by considering whether using empathy to consider exceptional cases has intrinsic or merely practical value and we introduce conceptual and empirical avenues for advancing this investigation.

Decolonial AI Alignment: Viśesadharma, Argument, and Artistic Expression

Prior work has explicated the coloniality of artificial intelligence (AI) development and deployment. One process that that work has not engaged with much is alignment: the tuning of large language model (LLM) behavior to be in line with desired values based on fine-grained human feedback. In addition to other practices, colonialism has a history of altering the beliefs and values of colonized peoples; this history is recapitulated in current LLM alignment practices. We suggest that AI alignment be decolonialized using three proposals: (a) changing the base moral philosophy from Western philosophy to dharma, (b) permitting traditions of argument and pluralism in alignment technologies, and (c) expanding the epistemology of values beyond instructions or commandments given in natural language.

Keeping Up with the Language Models: Robustness-Bias Interplay in NLI Data and Models

Auditing unwanted social bias in language models (LMs) is inherently hard due to the multidisciplinary nature of the work. In addition, the rapid evolution of LMs can make benchmarks irrelevant in no time. Bias auditing is further complicated by LM brittleness: when a presumably biased outcome is observed, is it due to model bias or model brittleness? We propose enlisting the models themselves to help construct bias auditing datasets that remain challenging, and introduce bias measures that distinguish between types of model errors. First, we extend an existing bias benchmark for NLI (BBNLI) using a combination of LM-generated lexical variations, adversarial filtering, and human validation. We demonstrate that the newly created dataset (BBNLInext) is more challenging than BBNLI: on average, BBNLI-next reduces the accuracy of state-of-the-art NLI models from 95.3%, as observed by BBNLI, to 58.6%. Second, we employ BBNLI-next to showcase the interplay between robustness and bias, and the subtlety in differentiating between the two. Third, we point out shortcomings in current bias scores used in the literature and propose bias measures that take into account pro-/anti-stereotype bias and model brittleness. We will publicly release the BBNLI-next dataset to inspire research on rapidly expanding benchmarks to keep up with model evolution, along with research on the robustness-bias interplay in bias auditing. Note: This paper contains offensive text examples.