Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding
Authors: Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, Jacob Steinhardt
AI-generated Key Points
- Authors propose a new test to evaluate multitask accuracy of text models
- Test encompasses 57 tasks spanning various domains
- Achieving high accuracy on the test requires extensive world knowledge and problem-solving abilities
- Most recent models exhibit near random-chance accuracy on the test
- Largest GPT-3 model shows improvement of nearly 20 percentage points above random chance on average
- Best models still require significant enhancements to achieve human-level accuracy across all tasks
- Models often display lopsided performance and struggle to recognize when they are incorrect
- Text models still exhibit near-random accuracy in socially important subjects like morality and law
- Proposed test provides a valuable framework to assess academic and professional understanding across multiple tasks and identify critical shortcomings effectively
- Study highlights limitations of current text models in terms of multitask accuracy
- Further advancements needed to bridge the gap between machine performance and human-level comprehension.
Abstract: We propose a new test to measure a text model's multitask accuracy. The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. To attain high accuracy on this test, models must possess extensive world knowledge and problem solving ability. We find that while most recent models have near random-chance accuracy, the very largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. However, on every one of the 57 tasks, the best models still need substantial improvements before they can reach human-level accuracy. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong. Worse, they still have near-random accuracy on some socially important subjects such as morality and law. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of a model's academic and professional understanding, our test can be used to analyze models across many tasks and to identify important shortcomings.
Tools for this paper
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
We compare the title and abstract with papers indexed in our database. For arXiv papers, we search within the same category; for DOI and other sources, we search across sources and subjects. You can rerun the search as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.