Cited by 113Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Opening up ChatGPT: Tracking openness, transparency, and accountability in instruction-tuned text generators

Open access
Liesenfeld, Andreas, Lopez, Alianda, Dingemanse, Mark·2023·Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

Abstract

Large language models that exhibit instruction-following behaviour represent one of the biggest recent upheavals in conversational interfaces, a trend in large part fuelled by the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a proprietary large language model for text generation fine-tuned through reinforcement learning from human feedback (LLM+RLHF). We review the risks of relying on proprietary software and survey the first crop of open-source projects of comparable architecture and functionality. The main contribution of this paper is to show that openness is differentiated, and to offer scientific documentation of degrees of openness in this fast-moving field. We evaluate projects in terms of openness of code, training data, model weights, RLHF data, licensing, scientific documentation, and access methods. We find that while there is a fast-growing list of projects billing themselves as ‘open source’, many inherit undocumented data of dubious legality, few share the all-important instruction-tuning (a key site where human annotation labour is involved), and careful scientific documentation is exceedingly rare. Degrees of openness are relevant to fairness and accountability at all points, from data collection and curation to model architecture, and from training and fine-tuning to release and deployment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3571884.3604316

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For many scientists and public interest practitioners, lack of transparency is a reason to avoid closed models in their work.

    “For many scientists and public interest practitioners, this lack of transparency is at best concerning, and often a reason to avoid such models in their work altogether [38, 46].”

    From Laboratory-Scale AI: Open-Weight Models are Competitive with ChatGPT Even in Low-Resource Settings (2024) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Introduction says proprietary systems lack transparent ethical oversight and that working scientists call for avoiding proprietary models. Section 1.1 explains why openness matters for research. The paper does not establish that many scientists or public-interest practitioners avoid these models in their work, or how often they do so. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • We are already seeing a strong trend towards selective and self-serving forms of openness, both in release strategies and in empirical surveys of model openness.

    “For one, we are already seeing a strong trend towards selective and self-serving forms of openness, both in release strategies and in empirical surveys of model openness ([32, 53, 60], and see below).”
  • Open generative AI systems are on the rise, with small players and academic initiatives leading the way in open innovation and scientific documentation and several larger corporations joining the fray by releasing models billed as open.

    “Open generative AI systems are on the rise, with small players and academic initiatives leading the way in open innovation and scientific documentation [20, 32, 61] and several larger corporations joining the fray by releasing models billed as 'open'.”
  • The multi-faceted nature of openness is also seen in initiatives that aim to codify transparency from upstream resources to downstream uses and in the Linux Foundation's model openness framework.

    “The multi-faceted nature of openness is also seen in initiatives that aim to codify transparency from upstream resources to downstream uses [8] and in a proposal like the Linux Foundation's model openness framework [59], which shows many likenesses to the dimensions we use here and introduced in [32].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dan McQuillan. 2022. Resisting AI: an anti-fascist approach to artificial intelligence. Bristol University Press, Bristol, UK. OCLC: on1328026349.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liesenfeld, A., Lopez, A., & Dingemanse, M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-07-19
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W4384261711
Cited by
111
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
27.28
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016.Vidi.185.205)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
ChatGPT, instruction-tuned language models, open-source large language models, openness, transparency, accountability, reinforcement learning from human feedback, model weights, licensing, scientific documentation, proprietary software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review