Cited by 9Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Language-Models-as-a-Service: Overview of a New Paradigm and its Challenges

Open access
La Malfa, Emanuele, Petrov, Aleksandar, Frieder, Simon, Weinhuber, Christoph, Burnell, Ryan, Nazar, Raza, Cohn, Anthony, Shadbolt, Nigel +1 more·2024·Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Abstract

Some of the most powerful language models currently are proprietary systems, accessible only via (typically restrictive) web or software programming interfaces. This is the LanguageModels-as-a-Service (LMaaS) paradigm. In contrast with scenarios where full model access is available, as in the case of open-source models, such closed-off language models present specific challenges for evaluating, benchmarking, and testing them. This paper has two goals: on the one hand, we delineate how the aforementioned challenges act as impediments to the accessibility, reproducibility, reliability, and trustworthiness of LMaaS. We systematically examine the issues that arise from a lack of information about language models for each of these four aspects. We conduct a detailed analysis of existing solutions, put forth a number of recommendations, and highlight directions for future advancements. On the other hand, it serves as a synthesized overview of the licences and capabilities of the most popular LMaaS.

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 · 10.1613/jair.1.15865

Cites

157 of 157 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?

  • ChatGPT is a highly opaque system that is yet to disclose its training data and it is unclear whether/when OpenAI would open up its technology to external scrutiny.

    “ChatGPT, for example, is a highly opaque system that is yet to disclose its training data and it is unclear whether/when OpenAI would open up its technology to external scrutiny [28, 66, 130].”

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: 8

  1. David Alvarez-Melis and Tommi S. Jaakkola. 2018. Towards robust interpretability with self-explaining neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, pages 7786-7795.
  2. Steven Bills, Nick Cammarata, Dan Mossing, Henk Tillman, Leo Gao, Gabriel Goh, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeff Wu, and William Saunders. 2023. Language models can explain neurons in language models.
  3. Adnan Darwiche and Auguste Hirth. 2020. On the reasons behind decisions. ArXiv preprint, abs/2002.09284. · arXiv
  4. Yogesh K Dwivedi, Nir Kshetri, Laurie Hughes, Emma Louise Slade, Anand Jeyaraj, Arpan Kumar Kar, Abdullah M Baabdullah, Alex Koohang, Vishnupriya Raghavan, Manju Ahuja, et al. 2023. "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71:102642.
  5. Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020b. On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1906-1919, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Shuyin Ouyang, Jie M Zhang, Mark Harman, and Meng Wang. 2023. LLM is like a box of chocolates: the non- determinism of ChatGPT in code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02828. · arXiv
  7. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  8. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
La Malfa, E., Petrov, A., Frieder, S., Weinhuber, C., Burnell, R., Nazar, R., Cohn, A., Shadbolt, N., & Wooldridge, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • TU Wien (AT)
Venue
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Published
2024-08-26
Volume
80
Pages
1497-1523
ISSN
1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401971053
Cited by
9
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • GCHQ
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/S024050/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/W003473/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
model evaluation, benchmarking, reproducibility, reliability, trustworthiness, API access, open-source models

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