Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback

AI-generated keywords: Artificial Intelligence Constitutional AI Supervised Learning Reinforcement Learning Transparency

AI-generated Key Points

  • The field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly advancing, and there is a growing need to ensure that AI systems are safe and beneficial for society.
  • Enlisting the help of AI systems in supervising other AIs is one approach to achieving this goal.
  • The authors propose a method for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs.
  • The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, forming what the authors call 'Constitutional AI' (CAI).
  • The CAI approach involves two stages: a supervised learning phase and a reinforcement learning phase.
  • In the supervised phase, initial responses generated by the AI assistant in response to harmful prompts are critiqued according to constitutional principles and revised accordingly.
  • The finetuned model resulting from this process is then used in the RL phase, where it generates pairs of responses to each prompt in a dataset of harmful prompts.
  • These pairs are formulated into multiple-choice questions asking which response is best according to constitutional principles. This produces an AI-generated preference dataset for harmlessness that is mixed with human feedback helpfulness data to train a preference model (PM).
  • Finally, the SL model from the first stage is finetuned via RL against this PM.
  • The CAI approach can successfully train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them.
  • Both the SL and RL methods leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve transparency and performance in AI decision-making while reducing reliance on human labels.
  • Model pre-training led by Nicholas Joseph and Sam McCandlish with help from Tom Brown and Jared Kaplan; core contributors including Tom Henighan, Scott Johnston, Sheer El Showk, Nelson Elhage, and Ben Mann; development of RL infrastructure led by Andy Jones and Kamal Ndousse in collaboration with Shauna Kravec and Dawn Drain; efficient sampling efforts led by Tom Brown and Tom Conerly; and development of the systems for efficient composition of sampling, prompting, and evaluation used for SL and RL CAI which were one of the primary tools used in this project.
  • The authors plan to explore methods for training AI systems to imitate natural language explanations humans give when evaluating AI behavior in future work.
  • Overall, the CAI approach offers a promising avenue for controlling AI behavior more precisely with far fewer human labels.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christopher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan Perez, Jamie Kerr, Jared Mueller, Jeffrey Ladish, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, Kamile Lukosuite, Liane Lovitt, Michael Sellitto, Nelson Elhage, Nicholas Schiefer, Noemi Mercado, Nova DasSarma, Robert Lasenby, Robin Larson, Sam Ringer, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Sheer El Showk, Stanislav Fort, Tamera Lanham, Timothy Telleen-Lawton, Tom Conerly, Tom Henighan, Tristan Hume, Samuel R. Bowman, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Ben Mann, Dario Amodei, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, Jared Kaplan

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and so we refer to the method as 'Constitutional AI'. The process involves both a supervised learning and a reinforcement learning phase. In the supervised phase we sample from an initial model, then generate self-critiques and revisions, and then finetune the original model on revised responses. In the RL phase, we sample from the finetuned model, use a model to evaluate which of the two samples is better, and then train a preference model from this dataset of AI preferences. We then train with RL using the preference model as the reward signal, i.e. we use 'RL from AI Feedback' (RLAIF). As a result we are able to train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them. Both the SL and RL methods can leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve the human-judged performance and transparency of AI decision making. These methods make it possible to control AI behavior more precisely and with far fewer human labels.

Submitted to arXiv on 15 Dec. 2022

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2212.08073v1

The field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly advancing, and as AI systems become more capable, there is a growing need to ensure that they are safe and beneficial for society. One approach to achieving this goal is to enlist the help of AI systems in supervising other AIs. In this paper, the authors propose a method for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, forming what the authors call 'Constitutional AI' (CAI). The CAI approach involves two stages: a supervised learning phase and a reinforcement learning phase. In the supervised phase, initial responses generated by the AI assistant in response to harmful prompts are critiqued according to constitutional principles and revised accordingly. The finetuned model resulting from this process is then used in the RL phase, where it generates pairs of responses to each prompt in a dataset of harmful prompts. These pairs are formulated into multiple-choice questions asking which response is best according to constitutional principles. This produces an AI-generated preference dataset for harmlessness that is mixed with human feedback helpfulness data to train a preference model (PM). Finally, the SL model from the first stage is finetuned via RL against this PM. The authors demonstrate that their CAI approach can successfully train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them. Both the SL and RL methods leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve transparency and performance in AI decision-making while reducing reliance on human labels. The contributions of this work include model pre-training led by Nicholas Joseph and Sam McCandlish with help from Tom Brown and Jared Kaplan; core contributors including Tom Henighan, Scott Johnston, Sheer El Showk, Nelson Elhage, and Ben Mann; development of RL infrastructure led by Andy Jones and Kamal Ndousse in collaboration with Shauna Kravec and Dawn Drain; efficient sampling efforts led by Tom Brown and Tom Conerly; and development of the systems for efficient composition of sampling, prompting, and evaluation used for SL and RL CAI which were one of the primary tools used in this project. The paper was drafted by Yuntao Bai and Jared Kaplan with contributions from many members of Anthropic's staff. In future work, the authors plan to explore methods for training AI systems to imitate natural language explanations humans give when evaluating AI behavior. They also note that while some contexts may view reduced transparency as a virtue they view it as a problem since it reduces transparency and helpfulness. Overall, the CAI approach offers a promising avenue for controlling AI behavior more precisely with far fewer human labels.
Created on 29 Mar. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while 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.