A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment
Open accessAbstract
Given the broad capabilities of large language models, it should be possible to work towards a general-purpose, text-based assistant that is aligned with human values, meaning that it is helpful, honest, and harmless. As an initial foray in this direction we study simple baseline techniques and evaluations, such as prompting. We find that the benefits from modest interventions increase with model size, generalize to a variety of alignment evaluations, and do not compromise the performance of large models. Next we investigate scaling trends for several training objectives relevant to alignment, comparing imitation learning, binary discrimination, and ranked preference modeling. We find that ranked preference modeling performs much better than imitation learning, and often scales more favorably with model size. In contrast, binary discrimination typically performs and scales very similarly to imitation learning. Finally we study a `preference model pre-training' stage of training, with the goal of improving sample efficiency when finetuning on human preferences.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Evaluation using GPT-judge is standard practice on TruthfulQA.
“Evaluation using GPT-judge is standard practice on TruthfulQA (Nakano et al. (2021); Rae et al. (2021); Askell et al. (2021)).”
From Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model (2023) · cites this paper as Askell et al. (2021)
In “Conditioning on Aligned Behavior” (p. 9), the paper identifies the official TruthfulQA MC1 evaluation as using total probability for each response. Appendix B.3 (p. 30) likewise says the authors evaluated answer-token probabilities, not answers scored by a GPT judge. This contradicts the cited claim that GPT-judge evaluation is standard practice on TruthfulQA. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLeveraging publicly available preference datasets notably enhances RM performance, especially for smaller models and datasets.
“Leveraging publicly available preference datasets (such as ranked answers from StackOverflow), as suggested by Askell et al. [8], notably enhances RM performance, especially for smaller models and datasets.”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
The Preference Model Pre-Training section (p. 8) says public data from Stack Exchange, Reddit, and Wikipedia improves sample efficiency when preference models are finetuned, supporting the claim about smaller datasets. But §4.2 (p. 21) reports significant gains for models larger than about 1B parameters and says small models did not appear to benefit; the claim’s emphasis on smaller models is contrary to that result. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese alignment processes typically involve tuning LLMs, not to gain new knowledge but to shift the outputs towards a more desirable human-readable format and away from potentially harmful or toxic behaviors learned during pre-training.
“These alignment processes typically involve tuning LLMs, not to gain new knowledge but to shift the outputs towards a more desirable human-readable format and away from potentially harmful or toxic behaviors learned during pre-training12,15.”
From When helpfulness backfires: LLMs and the risk of false medical information due to sycophantic behavior (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
Section 2 (p. 9) says alignment can guide models toward desirable behavior, and Section 2.2.2 (p. 12) reports reduced toxicity after prompting or context distillation. The paper does not characterize alignment as primarily a shift to a more human-readable format or establish that tuning is not intended to add knowledge; Section 5.1 (p. 25) notes that fine-tuning on tasks can improve performance. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe HHH principle was first introduced by Askell et al. (2021) and has become widely adopted in LLM alignment practices.
“First introduced by Askell et al. (2021), the HHH principle has become widely adopted in LLM alignment practices (Kamath et al., 2024).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Askell et al. (2021)
In “What are Helpfulness, Honesty, and Harmlessness?” (p. 4), Askell et al. say they chose these three criteria for aligned AI, supporting the attribution of the HHH formulation to them. Our copy does not establish that they were the first to introduce it. The later claim of widespread adoption is separately cited to Kamath et al. (2024), not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLarger models finetune with greater sample efficiency.
“Behaving in an aligned fashion is just another capability, and many works have shown that larger models are more capable [Kaplan et al., 2020, Rosenfeld et al., 2019, Brown et al., 2020], finetune with greater sample efficiency [Henighan et al., 2020, Askell et al., 2021], and do not suffer significantly from forgetting [Ramasesh et al., 2022].”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Askell et al., 2021
Section 4.2 (p. 21) reports that, with preference model pre-training, models above roughly 1B parameters benefited from as few as 500 finetuning pairs, while smaller models did not. This supports greater sample efficiency for larger models in that setting, but the cited results do not establish the claim for finetuning generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Preference modeling based on ranked comparisons scales better than many other techniques.
“we have also found [Askell et al., 2021] that preference modeling based on ranked comparisons scales better than many other techniques.”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Askell et al., 2021
The Motivations section (p. 4) says preference modeling scales more favorably than imitation learning when preferences form a ranked hierarchy or continuum. The comparative-scaling summary (p. 9) also reports gains for ranked preference modeling over imitation learning, but the claim broadens that finding to “many other techniques” without retaining the ranked-task qualification. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredConstitutional methods can utilize a helpful RLHF model to train helpful and harmless models without using any human feedback labels for harmlessness.
“We demonstrate constitutional methods to utilize a helpful RLHF model to train helpful and harmless models (as discussed and defined in [Askell et al., 2021, Bai et al., 2022]) without using any human feedback labels for harmlessness:”
From Affective Coherence Monitoring for Transformer-Based Language Models (2022) · cites this paper as Askell et al., 2021
Scaling laws suggest that larger RMs yield better agreement with actual human preferences.
“While smaller RMs are easier to train, scaling laws suggest that larger models yield better agreement with actual human preferences [8].”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Elo scores for context-distilled models in Figure 1 are more compressed than analogous results for prompted models in Askell et al. 2021.
“Note that the Elo scores for context-distilled models in Figure 1 differ somewhat from the analogous results for prompted models in [Askell et al., 2021] - the Elo scores are now more compressed.”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Askell et al., 2021
The mutual information approach is nonstandard, provided in lm-eval under acc mutual info, and used selectively by Brown et al. (2020) and Askell et al. (2021) for certain tasks.
“Although this approach is nonstandard, it is provided in lm-eval under the option acc mutual info , and used selectively by Brown et al. (2020) and Askell et al. (2021) for certain tasks.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Askell et al. (2021)
HHH Context-Distilled 52B Language Model performs similarly to a plain 52B language model prompted with HHH dialogues.
“It performs similarly to a plain 52B language model prompted with HHH dialogues [Askell et al., 2021].”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Askell et al., 2021
Appending a special 'end-of-context' token at the end of each sample appears to improve PM performance.
“As explained in Appendix C.4 of [Askell et al., 2021], this appears to improve PM performance.”
From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Askell et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 32 · Cited by 146
- Authors
- Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., Drain, D., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Jones, A., Joseph, N., Mann, B., DasSarma, N., Elhage, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Hernandez, D., Kernion, J., Ndousse, K., Olsson, C., Amodei, D., Brown, T., Clark, J., McCandlish, S., Olah, C., & Kaplan, J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2112.00861
- OpenAlex
- W3215698779
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 8
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- TIB Data Manager
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, AI alignment, language assistants, prompting, model size scaling, imitation learning, sample efficiency
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
