Beyond Labels: Aligning Large Language Models with Human-like Reasoning
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores techniques for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human-like reasoning, going beyond simple label prediction.
- It focuses on improving the alignment of LLMs with human values, preferences, and decision-making processes.
- The key idea is to move beyond optimizing LLMs solely for label prediction, and instead train them to reason in a more human-like way.
Plain English Explanation
The paper is about finding ways to make large language models (LLMs) - the powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text - more aligned with human values and decision-making. Rather than just training LLMs to predict the right labels or answers, the researchers explore ways to make the models reason more like humans do. This could help ensure the models make choices and generate content that is more in line with what humans would want.
For example, an LLM trained just to predict the next word in a sentence might generate text that is grammatically correct but lacks common sense or ethical reasoning. The researchers want to go beyond this superficial performance and make the models think more like humans do, considering things like moral values, emotions, and context. By aligning the models more closely with human-like decision-making, the goal is to create AI systems that are safer and more trustworthy.
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates different approaches to improving the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human-like reasoning and decision-making. Rather than optimizing LLMs solely for label prediction, the researchers explore training techniques that imbue the models with more human-like qualities, such as ethical reasoning, moral value alignment, and emotion modeling.
One key idea is to move beyond just fine-tuning LLMs on human-labeled datasets, and instead use more sophisticated training approaches that directly target human-like reasoning. This includes techniques like reward modeling, where the models are trained to optimize for outcomes that align with human preferences, and debate-style training, where the models learn to consider multiple perspectives and justify their decisions.
The paper also discusses the importance of evaluating the alignment of LLMs in more nuanced ways, beyond just measuring label prediction accuracy. Novel evaluation frameworks are proposed that assess the models' faithfulness to human-like rationales and decision-making processes.
Critical Analysis
The paper highlights important limitations of current approaches to LLM alignment, which tend to focus narrowly on label prediction rather than more holistic human-like reasoning. The proposed techniques for improving alignment, such as reward modeling and debate-style training, are promising but likely require significant further research and refinement.
One potential issue is the difficulty of defining and quantifying "human-like reasoning" in a precise and consistent way. The evaluation frameworks described in the paper represent a step forward, but assessing the complex and nuanced aspects of human decision-making remains a significant challenge.
Additionally, the paper does not fully address potential safety and robustness concerns that may arise as LLMs become more aligned with human values and preferences. There is a risk that small mistakes or biases in the training data or process could be amplified, leading to unintended and potentially harmful outcomes. Further research is needed to ensure that these more sophisticated LLM alignment techniques can be deployed safely and reliably.
Conclusion
This paper represents an important step forward in the quest to align large language models (LLMs) with human-like reasoning and decision-making. By moving beyond simple label prediction and instead focusing on imbuing LLMs with more human-like qualities, such as ethical reasoning, moral value alignment, and emotion modeling, the researchers aim to create AI systems that are more trustworthy and aligned with human values.
The proposed techniques, such as reward modeling and debate-style training, show promise, but significant further research and refinement will be needed to address the challenges of defining and evaluating human-like reasoning, as well as ensuring the safety and robustness of these more sophisticated LLM alignment approaches. As AI systems become increasingly capable and integrated into our lives, the importance of this work cannot be overstated, as it holds the potential to shape the future development of AI in a way that is more aligned with human values and priorities.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Beyond Labels: Aligning Large Language Models with Human-like Reasoning
Muhammad Rafsan Kabir, Rafeed Mohammad Sultan, Ihsanul Haque Asif, Jawad Ibn Ahad, Fuad Rahman, Mohammad Ruhul Amin, Nabeel Mohammed, Shafin Rahman
Aligning large language models (LLMs) with a human reasoning approach ensures that LLMs produce morally correct and human-like decisions. Ethical concerns are raised because current models are prone to generating false positives and providing malicious responses. To contribute to this issue, we have curated an ethics dataset named Dataset for Aligning Reasons (DFAR), designed to aid in aligning language models to generate human-like reasons. The dataset comprises statements with ethical-unethical labels and their corresponding reasons. In this study, we employed a unique and novel fine-tuning approach that utilizes ethics labels and their corresponding reasons (L+R), in contrast to the existing fine-tuning approach that only uses labels (L). The original pre-trained versions, the existing fine-tuned versions, and our proposed fine-tuned versions of LLMs were then evaluated on an ethical-unethical classification task and a reason-generation task. Our proposed fine-tuning strategy notably outperforms the others in both tasks, achieving significantly higher accuracy scores in the classification task and lower misalignment rates in the reason-generation task. The increase in classification accuracies and decrease in misalignment rates indicate that the L+R fine-tuned models align more with human ethics. Hence, this study illustrates that injecting reasons has substantially improved the alignment of LLMs, resulting in more human-like responses. We have made the DFAR dataset and corresponding codes publicly available at https://github.com/apurba-nsu-rnd-lab/DFAR.
Read more8/23/2024
0
Language Models are Alignable Decision-Makers: Dataset and Application to the Medical Triage Domain
Brian Hu, Bill Ray, Alice Leung, Amy Summerville, David Joy, Christopher Funk, Arslan Basharat
In difficult decision-making scenarios, it is common to have conflicting opinions among expert human decision-makers as there may not be a single right answer. Such decisions may be guided by different attributes that can be used to characterize an individual's decision. We introduce a novel dataset for medical triage decision-making, labeled with a set of decision-maker attributes (DMAs). This dataset consists of 62 scenarios, covering six different DMAs, including ethical principles such as fairness and moral desert. We present a novel software framework for human-aligned decision-making by utilizing these DMAs, paving the way for trustworthy AI with better guardrails. Specifically, we demonstrate how large language models (LLMs) can serve as ethical decision-makers, and how their decisions can be aligned to different DMAs using zero-shot prompting. Our experiments focus on different open-source models with varying sizes and training techniques, such as Falcon, Mistral, and Llama 2. Finally, we also introduce a new form of weighted self-consistency that improves the overall quantified performance. Our results provide new research directions in the use of LLMs as alignable decision-makers. The dataset and open-source software are publicly available at: https://github.com/ITM-Kitware/llm-alignable-dm.
Read more6/11/2024
0
Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale
Mohsen Fayyaz, Fan Yin, Jiao Sun, Nanyun Peng
We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations with rationales -- a set of tokens extracted from the input texts that reflect the decision process of LLMs. We examine LLM rationales extracted with two methods: 1) attribution-based methods that use attention or gradients to locate important tokens, and 2) prompting-based methods that guide LLMs to extract rationales using prompts. Through extensive experiments, we show that prompting-based rationales align better with human-annotated rationales than attribution-based rationales, and demonstrate reasonable alignment with humans even when model performance is poor. We additionally find that the faithfulness limitations of prompting-based methods, which are identified in previous work, may be linked to their collapsed predictions. By fine-tuning these models on the corresponding datasets, both prompting and attribution methods demonstrate improved faithfulness. Our study sheds light on more rigorous and fair evaluations of LLM rationales, especially for prompting-based ones.
Read more7/2/2024
0
Ethical Reasoning and Moral Value Alignment of LLMs Depend on the Language we Prompt them in
Utkarsh Agarwal, Kumar Tanmay, Aditi Khandelwal, Monojit Choudhury
Ethical reasoning is a crucial skill for Large Language Models (LLMs). However, moral values are not universal, but rather influenced by language and culture. This paper explores how three prominent LLMs -- GPT-4, ChatGPT, and Llama2-70B-Chat -- perform ethical reasoning in different languages and if their moral judgement depend on the language in which they are prompted. We extend the study of ethical reasoning of LLMs by Rao et al. (2023) to a multilingual setup following their framework of probing LLMs with ethical dilemmas and policies from three branches of normative ethics: deontology, virtue, and consequentialism. We experiment with six languages: English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, and Swahili. We find that GPT-4 is the most consistent and unbiased ethical reasoner across languages, while ChatGPT and Llama2-70B-Chat show significant moral value bias when we move to languages other than English. Interestingly, the nature of this bias significantly vary across languages for all LLMs, including GPT-4.
Read more4/30/2024