Democratizing Ethical Assessment of Natural Language Generation Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.10576v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:20:31 GMT
• Title: Democratizing Ethical Assessment of Natural Language Generation Models
• Authors: Amin Rasekh, Ian Eisenberg
• Abstract summary: Natural language generation models are computer systems that generate coherent language when prompted with a sequence of words as context. Despite their ubiquity and many beneficial applications, language generation models also have the potential to inflict social harms. Ethical assessment of these models is therefore critical. This article introduces a new tool to democratize and standardize ethical assessment of natural language generation models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Natural language generation models are computer systems that generate coherent language when prompted with a sequence of words as context. Despite their ubiquity and many beneficial applications, language generation models also have the potential to inflict social harms by generating discriminatory language, hateful speech, profane content, and other harmful material. Ethical assessment of these models is therefore critical. But it is also a challenging task, requiring an expertise in several specialized domains, such as computational linguistics and social justice. While significant strides have been made by the research community in this domain, accessibility of such ethical assessments to the wider population is limited due to the high entry barriers. This article introduces a new tool to democratize and standardize ethical assessment of natural language generation models: Tool for Ethical Assessment of Language generation models (TEAL), a component of Credo AI Lens, an open-source assessment framework.

Related papers

• LIMBA: An Open-Source Framework for the Preservation and Valorization of Low-Resource Languages using Generative Models [62.47865866398233]
  This white paper proposes a framework to generate linguistic tools for low-resource languages. By addressing the data scarcity that hinders intelligent applications for such languages, we contribute to promoting linguistic diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T16:59:41Z)
• Trustworthy Alignment of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning [84.94709351266557]
  We focus on the trustworthiness of language models with respect to retrieval augmentation. We deem that retrieval-augmented language models have the inherent capabilities of supplying response according to both contextual and parametric knowledge. Inspired by aligning language models with human preference, we take the first step towards aligning retrieval-augmented language models to a status where it responds relying merely on the external evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T09:25:21Z)
• Formal Aspects of Language Modeling [74.16212987886013]
  Large language models have become one of the most commonly deployed NLP inventions. These notes are the accompaniment to the theoretical portion of the ETH Z"urich course on large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T20:21:42Z)
• L2CEval: Evaluating Language-to-Code Generation Capabilities of Large Language Models [102.00201523306986]
  We present L2CEval, a systematic evaluation of the language-to-code generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We analyze the factors that potentially affect their performance, such as model size, pretraining data, instruction tuning, and different prompting methods. In addition to assessing model performance, we measure confidence calibration for the models and conduct human evaluations of the output programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:00Z)
• On the application of Large Language Models for language teaching and assessment technology [18.735612275207853]
  We look at the potential for incorporating large language models in AI-driven language teaching and assessment systems. We find that larger language models offer improvements over previous models in text generation. For automated grading and grammatical error correction, tasks whose progress is checked on well-known benchmarks, early investigations indicate that large language models on their own do not improve on state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T11:12:56Z)
• Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models [11.323961700172175]
  This article investigates the challenges and risks associated with biases in large-scale language models like ChatGPT. We discuss the origins of biases, stemming from, among others, the nature of training data, model specifications, algorithmic constraints, product design, and policy decisions. We review the current approaches to identify, quantify, and mitigate biases in language models, emphasizing the need for a multi-disciplinary, collaborative effort to develop more equitable, transparent, and responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T17:14:00Z)
• Estimating the Personality of White-Box Language Models [0.589889361990138]
  Large-scale language models, which are trained on large corpora of text, are being used in a wide range of applications everywhere. Existing research shows that these models can and do capture human biases. Many of these biases, especially those that could potentially cause harm, are being well-investigated. However, studies that infer and change human personality traits inherited by these models have been scarce or non-existent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-25T23:53:53Z)
• Curriculum: A Broad-Coverage Benchmark for Linguistic Phenomena in Natural Language Understanding [1.827510863075184]
  Curriculum is a new format of NLI benchmark for evaluation of broad-coverage linguistic phenomena. We show that this linguistic-phenomena-driven benchmark can serve as an effective tool for diagnosing model behavior and verifying model learning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-13T10:32:03Z)
• Analyzing the Limits of Self-Supervision in Handling Bias in Language [52.26068057260399]
  We evaluate how well language models capture the semantics of four tasks for bias: diagnosis, identification, extraction and rephrasing. Our analyses indicate that language models are capable of performing these tasks to widely varying degrees across different bias dimensions, such as gender and political affiliation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T05:36:08Z)
• Ethical-Advice Taker: Do Language Models Understand Natural Language Interventions? [62.74872383104381]
  We investigate the effectiveness of natural language interventions for reading-comprehension systems. We propose a new language understanding task, Linguistic Ethical Interventions (LEI), where the goal is to amend a question-answering (QA) model's unethical behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T20:57:58Z)
• Neural Language Generation: Formulation, Methods, and Evaluation [13.62873478165553]
  Recent advances in neural network-based generative modeling have reignited the hopes in having computer systems capable of seamlessly conversing with humans. High capacity deep learning models trained on large scale datasets demonstrate unparalleled abilities to learn patterns in the data even in the lack of explicit supervision signals. There is no standard way to assess the quality of text produced by these generative models, which constitutes a serious bottleneck towards the progress of the field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-31T00:08:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.