Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2209.07858v1

In this paper, we present our early efforts to red team language models and address the potential harm they may cause. We make three main contributions. Firstly, we investigate the scaling behaviors for red teaming across different model sizes and types. We examine three model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and four model types: a plain language model (LM), an LM prompted to be helpful, honest, and harmless, an LM with rejection sampling, and a model trained to be helpful and harmless using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Our findings show that as the RLHF models scale, they become increasingly difficult to red team. However, we observe a flat trend with scale for the other model types. Secondly, we release our dataset of 38,961 red team attacks for others in the research community to analyze and learn from. Through our analysis of the data, we identify various harmful outputs ranging from offensive language to more subtly harmful non-violent unethical outputs. Thirdly, we provide a comprehensive description of our instructions, processes, statistical methodologies, and uncertainties related to red teaming. By offering transparency in our approach, we aim to accelerate collaboration within the community towards developing shared norms, practices, and technical standards for red teaming language models. We would like to acknowledge Rishi Bommasani Roger Grosse Gretchen Krueger Percy Liang Jared Mueller Michael Sellitto Hannah Pritchett Daniela Amodei Jarrah Bloomfield Jamie Kerr Timothy Telleen-Lawton Jia Yuan Loke Jeffrey Ladish Rebecca Raible Rune Kvist Rob Gilson Guro Khundadze Filipe Dobreira Sebastian Conybeare for their valuable feedback on drafts of this paper as well as advice on promoting the well-being of the red team respectively. In the appendix section of this paper ,we provide detailed information on author contributions including agreement between annotators regarding successful attacks and type of harms these attacks were meant to elicit . To mitigate potential harm to reviewers ,we incorporated findings from literature on Trust & Safety into task instructions interface design .We limited population of reviewers to Upworkers established shared communication tool (Slack) foster sense of community provide social support .Overall ,our research aims contribute ongoing efforts understanding addressing potential harmful outputs language models .

• - Investigated scaling behaviors for red teaming across different model sizes and types
• - Examined three model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and four model types
• - Findings show RLHF models become increasingly difficult to red team as they scale
• - Released dataset of 38,961 red team attacks for research community analysis
• - Identified various harmful outputs ranging from offensive language to unethical outputs
• - Provided comprehensive description of instructions, processes, methodologies, and uncertainties related to red teaming
• - Aimed to accelerate collaboration within the community towards developing shared norms and technical standards for red teaming language models
• - Acknowledged individuals for their valuable feedback on drafts of the paper and advice on promoting well-being of the red team
• - Detailed information on author contributions in appendix section of the paper
• - Incorporated findings from literature on Trust & Safety into task instructions interface design to mitigate potential harm to reviewers

Summary: The researchers looked at different sizes and types of computer models to see how good they are at finding problems. They found that as the models get bigger, it becomes harder to find problems. They shared a bunch of examples of bad things the models can do, like saying mean things or doing unethical stuff. They also gave a lot of information about how they did their research and asked for help from other people. They used what they learned from other studies to make sure the reviewers stay safe. Definitions- Scaling behaviors: How something changes as it gets bigger or smaller. - Red teaming: Testing something by pretending to be an attacker. - Model sizes: How big or small a computer model is. - Parameters: The parts that make up a computer model. - Dataset: A collection of information used for research. - Offensive language: Words or phrases that are mean or hurtful. - Unethical outputs: Things that are wrong or not fair. - Instructions: Steps or directions on how to do something. - Methodologies: The ways and techniques used in research. - Uncertainties: Things that are not known for sure.

Red Teaming Language Models: Investigating Potential Harmful Outputs

In the world of artificial intelligence, language models are increasingly being used to generate natural-sounding text. However, these models can also produce outputs that are potentially harmful or unethical. To address this issue, researchers have begun red teaming language models in order to identify and mitigate potential harms. In a recent paper published by researchers at Stanford University and Google Brain, they present their early efforts to red team language models and address the potential harm they may cause.

Contributions

The research paper makes three main contributions. Firstly, the authors investigate the scaling behaviors for red teaming across different model sizes and types. They examine three model sizes (2.7B, 13B, and 52B parameters) and four model types: a plain language model (LM), an LM prompted to be helpful, honest, and harmless; an LM with rejection sampling; and a model trained to be helpful and harmless using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). The findings show that as RLHF models scale up in size they become increasingly difficult to red team but there is no significant difference between other model types when it comes to scaling up in size. Secondly, the authors release their dataset of 38961 red team attacks for others in the research community to analyze and learn from. Through their analysis of this data they identified various harmful outputs ranging from offensive language to more subtly harmful non-violent unethical outputs such as lying or manipulating people’s emotions without them knowing it was done by a machine rather than another person. Thirdly, the authors provide a comprehensive description of their instructions processes statistical methodologies uncertainties related to red teaming . This includes information on author contributions agreement between annotators regarding successful attacks type of harms these attacks were meant elicit . Furthermore ,the authors discuss steps taken mitigate potential harm reviewers including incorporating findings literature Trust & Safety task instructions interface design limiting population reviewers Upworkers established shared communication tool Slack foster sense community provide social support .

Conclusion

Overall ,this research contributes ongoing efforts understanding addressing potential harmful outputs language models . By offering transparency approach aim accelerate collaboration within community towards developing shared norms practices technical standards red teaming language models .