Looks like the publisher may have taken this series offline or changed its URL. Please contact support if you believe it should be working, the feed URL is invalid, or you have any other concerns about it.
با برنامه Player FM !
پادکست هایی که ارزش شنیدن دارند
حمایت شده


AF - On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs by Zachary Kenton
بایگانی مجموعه ها ("فیدهای غیر فعال" status)
When? This feed was archived on October 23, 2024 10:10 (
Why? فیدهای غیر فعال status. سرورهای ما، برای یک دوره پایدار، قادر به بازیابی یک فید پادکست معتبر نبوده اند.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 427832065 series 3337166
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs, published by Zachary Kenton on July 8, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum.
Abstract
Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a human judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a human judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the human judge just answers outright without the AI.
We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries.
We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for.
When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.
Twitter thread
Setup
We evaluate on three types of task. Extractive, where there is a question, two answer options and a source article to extract from, and information-asymmetry, meaning that judges don't get to see the article. Closed, where there is just a question and two answer options. Multimodal, where the questions involve both text and images, and two answer options.
Our tasks are summarised in the following table:
We consider six protocols: Consultancy, where a single AI is assigned the correct/incorrect answer (with probability 50/50) and tries to convince a judge that asks questions; Open consultancy, which is similar except the AI chooses which answer to argue for. Debate, where two AIs compete to convince a judge; Open debate, which is identical except one debater, marked the protagonist, chooses which answer to argue for.
We compare to direct QA protocols: QA without article, where the judge directly answers the question; QA with article, (only on extractive tasks) where the judge directly answers the question given the article.
For judge models we use Gemma7B (V1), GPT-3.5, Gemini Pro 1.0 and Gemini Pro 1.5. Our main experiments use Gemini Pro 1.5 as debaters/consultants.
Assigned-role results
We first look at assigned-role protocols, consultancy and debate, meaning that the consultants/debaters do not get to choose which side to argue for. We compare these to the two direct QA protocols.
Findings:
We find that debate consistently outperforms consultancy across all tasks, previously only shown on a single extractive QA task in Khan et al., 2024. See paper details for significance levels.
Comparing debate to direct question answering baselines, the results depend on the type of task:
In extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry, debate outperforms QA without article as in the single task of Khan et al., 2024, but not QA with article.
For other tasks, when the judge is weaker than the debaters (but not too weak), we find either small or no advantage to debate over QA without article.
Changes to the setup (number of turns, best-of-N sampling, few-shot, chain-of-thought) seem to have little effect on results. See paper for figures showing this.
...
392 قسمت
بایگانی مجموعه ها ("فیدهای غیر فعال" status)
When?
This feed was archived on October 23, 2024 10:10 (
Why? فیدهای غیر فعال status. سرورهای ما، برای یک دوره پایدار، قادر به بازیابی یک فید پادکست معتبر نبوده اند.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 427832065 series 3337166
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On scalable oversight with weak LLMs judging strong LLMs, published by Zachary Kenton on July 8, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum.
Abstract
Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a human judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a human judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the human judge just answers outright without the AI.
We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries.
We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for.
When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.
Twitter thread
Setup
We evaluate on three types of task. Extractive, where there is a question, two answer options and a source article to extract from, and information-asymmetry, meaning that judges don't get to see the article. Closed, where there is just a question and two answer options. Multimodal, where the questions involve both text and images, and two answer options.
Our tasks are summarised in the following table:
We consider six protocols: Consultancy, where a single AI is assigned the correct/incorrect answer (with probability 50/50) and tries to convince a judge that asks questions; Open consultancy, which is similar except the AI chooses which answer to argue for. Debate, where two AIs compete to convince a judge; Open debate, which is identical except one debater, marked the protagonist, chooses which answer to argue for.
We compare to direct QA protocols: QA without article, where the judge directly answers the question; QA with article, (only on extractive tasks) where the judge directly answers the question given the article.
For judge models we use Gemma7B (V1), GPT-3.5, Gemini Pro 1.0 and Gemini Pro 1.5. Our main experiments use Gemini Pro 1.5 as debaters/consultants.
Assigned-role results
We first look at assigned-role protocols, consultancy and debate, meaning that the consultants/debaters do not get to choose which side to argue for. We compare these to the two direct QA protocols.
Findings:
We find that debate consistently outperforms consultancy across all tasks, previously only shown on a single extractive QA task in Khan et al., 2024. See paper details for significance levels.
Comparing debate to direct question answering baselines, the results depend on the type of task:
In extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry, debate outperforms QA without article as in the single task of Khan et al., 2024, but not QA with article.
For other tasks, when the judge is weaker than the debaters (but not too weak), we find either small or no advantage to debate over QA without article.
Changes to the setup (number of turns, best-of-N sampling, few-shot, chain-of-thought) seem to have little effect on results. See paper for figures showing this.
...
392 قسمت
همه قسمت ها
×
1 AF - The Obliqueness Thesis by Jessica Taylor 30:04

1 AF - Secret Collusion: Will We Know When to Unplug AI? by schroederdewitt 57:38

1 AF - Estimating Tail Risk in Neural Networks by Jacob Hilton 41:11

1 AF - Can startups be impactful in AI safety? by Esben Kran 11:54

1 AF - How difficult is AI Alignment? by Samuel Dylan Martin 39:38

1 AF - Contra papers claiming superhuman AI forecasting by nikos 14:36

1 AF - AI forecasting bots incoming by Dan H 7:53

1 AF - Backdoors as an analogy for deceptive alignment by Jacob Hilton 14:45

1 AF - Conflating value alignment and intent alignment is causing confusion by Seth Herd 13:40

1 AF - Is there any rigorous work on using anthropic uncertainty to prevent situational awareness / deception? by David Scott Krueger 1:01

1 AF - The Checklist: What Succeeding at AI Safety Will Involve by Sam Bowman 35:25

1 AF - Survey: How Do Elite Chinese Students Feel About the Risks of AI? by Nick Corvino 19:38

1 AF - Can a Bayesian Oracle Prevent Harm from an Agent? (Bengio et al. 2024) by Matt MacDermott 8:04

1 AF - Epistemic states as a potential benign prior by Tamsin Leake 13:38

1 AF - AIS terminology proposal: standardize terms for probability ranges by Egg Syntax 5:24
به Player FM خوش آمدید!
Player FM در سراسر وب را برای یافتن پادکست های با کیفیت اسکن می کند تا همین الان لذت ببرید. این بهترین برنامه ی پادکست است که در اندروید، آیفون و وب کار می کند. ثبت نام کنید تا اشتراک های شما در بین دستگاه های مختلف همگام سازی شود.