CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 778Speech and dialogue systemsTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications

Open access
Thoppilan, Romal, De Freitas, Daniel, Hall, Jamie, Shazeer, Noam, Kulshreshtha, Apoorv, Cheng, Heng-Tze, Jin, Alicia, Bos, Taylor +52 more·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2201.08239arXiv 2201.08239
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications. LaMDA is a family of Transformer-based neural language models specialized for dialog, which have up to 137B parameters and are pre-trained on 1.56T words of public dialog data and web text. While model scaling alone can improve quality, it shows less improvements on safety and factual grounding. We demonstrate that fine-tuning with annotated data and enabling the model to consult external knowledge sources can lead to significant improvements towards the two key challenges of safety and factual grounding. The first challenge, safety, involves ensuring that the model's responses are consistent with a set of human values, such as preventing harmful suggestions and unfair bias. We quantify safety using a metric based on an illustrative set of human values, and we find that filtering candidate responses using a LaMDA classifier fine-tuned with a small amount of crowdworker-annotated data offers a promising approach to improving model safety. The second challenge, factual grounding, involves enabling the model to consult external knowledge sources, such as an information retrieval system, a language translator, and a calculator. We quantify factuality using a groundedness metric, and we find that our approach enables the model to generate responses grounded in known sources, rather than responses that merely sound plausible. Finally, we explore the use of LaMDA in the domains of education and content recommendations, and analyze their helpfulness and role consistency.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2201.08239

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.

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?

  • Within the past five years, NLP advancements have achieved huge gains in accuracy on standard datasets, with state-of-the-art accuracy as high as 99% for certain tasks.

    “Within the past five years, advancements in NLP have achieved huge gains in accuracy when tested against standard datasets [8, 18, 34, 56, 58, 60, 63], with state-ofthe-art accuracy in natural language processing models as high as 99% for certain tasks [8, 34].”

    From A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding User Trust after Voice Assistant Failures (2023) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Related work section (p. 3) describes recent successes in NLP, and the Results section (p. 11) reports improved dialog-model performance on an evaluation benchmark. But the paper does not report state-of-the-art accuracy of 99% on an NLP task or establish gains across standard datasets over a five-year period. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • LLMs' offline training paradigm often limits access to customized and up-to-date information.

    “their offline training paradigm often limits access to customized and up-to-date information.”

    From RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Thoppilan et al., 2022

    Section 6.2 (p. 7) explains that facts change over time and that relying on memorized training data poses a temporal generalization problem, supporting the up-to-date-information part of the claim. The paper discusses adapting LaMDA to application roles (Introduction, p. 2), but the passages do not establish that offline training limits access to customized information. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • RLHF improves helpfulness and harmlessness by a huge margin when compared to simply scaling models up.

    “As in other recent works associated with aligning large language models [Stiennon et al., 2020, Thoppilan et al., 2022, Ouyang et al., 2022, Nakano et al., 2021, Menick et al., 2022], RLHF improves helpfulness and harmlessness by a huge margin when compared to simply scaling models up.”

    From Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Thoppilan et al., 2022

    Results on foundation metrics (p. 11) report that fine-tuning with crowdworker-annotated data improves quality and safety substantially compared with scaling alone. But §6.1 (p. 7) describes generative and discriminative fine-tuning, filtering, and ranking—not reinforcement learning from human feedback. The paper therefore supports the comparison in broad terms, but not its attribution specifically to RLHF. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Teaching LLMs to use tools such as search engines or code interpreters hugely expands the range of tasks they can solve, transforming them from pure chat models into more general assistants.

    “Teaching LLMs to use tools such as search engines or code interpreters hugely expands the range of tasks they can solve, transforming them from pure chat models into more general assistants (Nakano et al., 2021; Thoppilan et al., 2022; Parisi et al., 2022; Gao et al., 2023; Mialon et al., 2023a; Schick et al., 2024).”

    From The Llama 3 Herd of Models (2024) · cites this paper as Thoppilan et al., 2022

    Section 6.2 (p. 8) describes fine-tuning LaMDA to consult an information retrieval system, calculator, and translator; the Introduction (p. 2) calls external tools a promising way to improve groundedness. The paper supports the search-tool example, but does not establish that tool use hugely expands the range of solvable tasks or transforms chat models into general assistants. It does not describe a code interpreter. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Language models are used in conversational interfaces, search and summarization, and collaborative writing.

    “Language models have become an important and flexible building block in a variety of user-facing language technologies, including conversational interfaces, search and summarization, and collaborative writing (Shuster et al., 2022;Thoppilan et al., 2022;Lee et al., 2022, inter alia).”

    From Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts (2024) · cites this paper as Thoppilan et al., 2022

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 778

Research works printed but not linked: 102

  1. [1][1] Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. Skip-thought vectors. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3294-3302, 2015. -
  2. [2][2] Andrew M Dai and Quoc V Le. Semi-supervised sequence learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2015. -
  3. [3][3] Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Deep contextualized word representations. In NAACL , 2018. -
  4. [4][4] Jeremy Howard and Sebastian Ruder. Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. In ACL , 2018. -
  5. [6][6] Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In NAACL-HLT , 2019. -
  6. [7][7] Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. XLNet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In NeurIPS , 2019. -
  7. [8][8] Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1eA7AEtvS . -
  8. [9][9] Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , 2019. - · arXiv
  9. [10][10] Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. ELECTRA: Pre-training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In ICLR , 2020. -
  10. [11][11] Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 2020. -
  11. [12][12] Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS , 2020. -
  12. [14][14] Lifeng Shang, Zhengdong Lu, and Hang Li. Neural responding machine for short-text conversation. In ACL , 2015. -
  13. [15][15] Alessandro Sordoni, Michel Galley, Michael Auli, Chris Brockett, Yangfeng Ji, Margaret Mitchell, Jian-Yun Nie, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. A neural network approach to context-sensitive generation of conversational responses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06714 , 2015. - · arXiv
  14. [16][16] Oriol Vinyals and Quoc V. Le. A neural conversational model. In ICML Workshop , 2015. -
  15. [17][17] Daniel Adiwardana, Minh-Thang Luong, David R. So, Jamie Hall, Noah Fiedel, Romal Thoppilan, Zi Yang, Apoorv Kulshreshtha, Gaurav Nemade, Yifeng Lu, and Quoc V. Le. Towards a human-like open-domain chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09977 , 2020. - · arXiv
  16. [18][18] Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Kurt Shuster, Eric M. Smith, Y-Lan Boureau, and Jason Weston. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13637 , 2020. - · arXiv
  17. [19][19] Tomas Mikolov, Martin Karafiát, Lukas Burget, Jan Cernock` y, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. Recurrent neural network based language model. In INTERSPEECH , 2010. -
  18. [20][20] Ilya Sutskever, James Martens, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Generating text with recurrent neural networks. In ICML , 2011. -
  19. [21][21] Rafal Józefowicz, Oriol Vinyals, Mike Schuster, Noam Shazeer, and Yonghui Wu. Exploring the limits of language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.02410 , 2016. - · arXiv
  20. [22][22] Jeremy Howard and Sebastian Ruder. Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. In ACL , 2018. -
  21. [23][23] Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. In ICLR , 2016. -
  22. [24][24] Jack W. Rae, Sebastian Borgeaud, Trevor Cai, Katie Millican, Jordan Hoffmann, Francis Song, John Aslanides, Sarah Henderson, Roman Ring, Susannah Young, Eliza Rutherford, Tom Hennigan, Jacob Menick, Albin Cassirer, Richard Powell, George van den Driessche, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Maribeth Rauh, Po-Sen Huang, Amelia Glaese, Johannes Welbl, Sumanth Dathathri, Saffron Huang, Jonathan Uesato, John Mellor, Irina Higgins, Antonia Creswell, Nat McAleese, Amy Wu, Erich Elsen, Siddhant Jayakumar, Elena Buchatskaya, David Budden, Esme Sutherland, Karen Simonyan, Michela Paganini, Laurent Sifre, Lena Martens, Xiang Lorraine Li, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Aida Nematzadeh, Elena Gribovskaya, Domenic Donato, Angeliki Lazaridou, Arthur Mensch, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Maria Tsimpoukelli, Nikolai Grigorev, Doug Fritz, Thibault Sottiaux, Mantas Pajarskas, Toby Pohlen, Zhitao Gong, Daniel Toyama, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Yujia Li, Tayfun Terzi, Vladimir Mikulik, Igor Babuschkin, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Chris Jones, James Bradbury, Matthew Johnson, Blake Hechtman, Laura Weidinger, Iason Gabriel, William Isaac, Ed Lockhart, Simon Osindero, Laura Rimell, Chris Dyer, Oriol Vinyals, Kareem Ayoub, Jeff Stanway, Lorrayne Bennett, Demis Hassabis, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Geoffrey Irving. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446 , 2021. - · arXiv
  23. [25][25] Emily Dinan, Varvara Logacheva, Valentin Malykh, Alexander H. Miller, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, Iulian Serban, Ryan Lowe, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Alan W. Black, Alexander I. Rudnicky, Jason Williams, Joelle Pineau, Mikhail S. Burtsev, and Jason Weston. The second conversational intelligence challenge (convai2). The NeurIPS '18 Competition , 2020. -
  24. [26][26] Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? ACL , 2018. -
  25. [27][27] Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. A diversity-promoting objective function for neural conversation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.03055 , 2015. - · arXiv
  26. [28][28] Iulian Vlad Serban, Ryan Lowe, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. Generative deep neural networks for dialogue: A short review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06216 , 2016. - · arXiv
  27. [29][29] Thomas Wolf, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, and Clement Delangue. Transfertransfo: A transfer learning approach for neural network based conversational agents. In NeurIPS Workshop on Conversational AI , 2019. -
  28. [30][30] Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and Bill Dolan. Dialogpt: Large-scale generative pre-training for conversational response generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00536 , 2019. - · arXiv
  29. [31][31] Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07567 , 2021. - · arXiv
  30. [32][32] Adam Roberts, Colin Raffel, and Noam Shazeer. How much knowledge can you pack into the parameters of a language model? In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 5418-5426, November 2020. -
  31. [34][34] Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsk, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172 , 2019. - · arXiv
  32. [35][35] Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. NeurIPS , 2020. -
  33. [36][36] Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. Realm: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08909 , 2020. - · arXiv
  34. [37][37] Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01282 , 2021. - · arXiv
  35. [38][38] Fengbin Zhu, Wenqiang Lei, Chao Wang, Jianming Zheng, Soujanya Poria, and Tat-Seng Chua. Retrieving and reading: A comprehensive survey on open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00774 , 2021. - · arXiv
  36. [39][39] Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas O˘ guz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906 , 2020. - · arXiv
  37. [40][40] Oleg Lesota, Navid Rekabsaz, Daniel Cohen, Klaus Antonius Grasserbauer, Carsten Eickhoff, and Markus Schedl. A modern perspective on query likelihood with deep generative retrieval models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13618 , 2021. - · arXiv
  38. [41][41] Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, Diego de Las Casas, Aurelia Guy, Jacob Menick, Roman Ring, Tom Hennigan, Saffron Huang, Loren Maggiore, Chris Jones, Albin Cassirer, Andy Brock, Michela Paganini, Geoffrey Irving, Oriol Vinyals, Simon Osindero, Karen Simonyan, Jack W. Rae, Erich Elsen, and Laurent Sifre. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04426 , 2021. - · arXiv
  39. [42][42] Bill Byrne, Karthik Krishnamoorthi, Saravanan Ganesh, and Mihir Sanjay Kale. Tickettalk: Toward human-level performance with end-to-end, transaction-based dialog systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12458 , 2020. - · arXiv
  40. [43][43] Leonard Adolphs, Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. Reason first, then respond: Modular generation for knowledge-infused dialogue. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05204 , 2021. - · arXiv
  41. [44][44] Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. Webgpt: Browser-assisted questionanswering with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09332 , 2021. - · arXiv
  42. [45][45] Mojtaba Komeili, Kurt Shuster, and Jason Weston. Internet-augmented dialogue generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07566 , 2021. - · arXiv
  43. [46][46] Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. Usr: An unsupervised and reference free evaluation metric for dialog generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 681-707, 2020. -
  44. [47][47] Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei jing Zhu. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In ACL , 2002. -
  45. [48][48] Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian Serban, Mike Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. How NOT to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2016. -
  46. [49][49] Abigail See, Stephen Roller, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. What makes a good conversation? how controllable attributes affect human judgments. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019. -
  47. [50][50] Margaret Li, Jason Weston, and Stephen Roller. Acute-eval: Improved dialogue evaluation with optimized questions and multi-turn comparisons. In NeurIPS workshop on Conversational AI , 2019. -
  48. [51][51] Rostislav Nedelchev, Jens Lehmann, and Ricardo Usbeck. Treating dialogue quality evaluation as an anomaly detection problem. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , pages 508-512, 2020. -
  49. [52][52] Anu Venkatesh, Chandra Khatri, Ashwin Ram, Fenfei Guo, Raefer Gabriel, Ashish Nagar, Rohit Prasad, Ming Cheng, Behnam Hedayatnia, Angeliki Metallinou, Rahul Goel, Shaohua Yang, and Anirudh Raju. On evaluating and comparing conversational agents. NeurIPS , 2017. -
  50. [53][53] Emily Dinan, Gavin Abercrombie, A. Stevie Bergman, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. Anticipating safety issues in e2e conversational ai: Framework and tooling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03451 , 2021. - · arXiv
  51. [54][54] Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Zac Kenton, Sasha Brown, Will Hawkins, Tom Stepleton, Courtney Biles, Abeba Birhane, Julia Haas, Laura Rimell, Lisa Anne Hendricks, William Isaac, Sean Legassick, Geoffrey Irving, and Iason Gabriel. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 , 2021. - · arXiv
  52. [55][55] Samuel Rota Bulò, Lorenzo Porzi, and Peter Kontschieder. Dropout distillation. In ICLR , 2016. -
  53. [56][56] Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. The radicalization risks of GPT-3 and advanced neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06807 , 2020. - · arXiv
  54. [57][57] Abubakar Abid, Maheen Farooqi, and James Zou. Persistent anti-muslim bias in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05783 , 2021. - · arXiv
  55. [58][58] Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam Kalai. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2016. -
  56. [59][59] Christine Basta, Marta R. Costa-jussà, and Noe Casas. Evaluating the underlying gender bias in contextualized word embeddings. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing , August 2019. -
  57. [60][60] Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing , August 2019. -
  58. [61][61] Haoran Zhang, Amy X. Lu, Mohamed Abdalla, Matthew McDermott, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Hurtful words: Quantifying biases in clinical contextual word embeddings. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning , 2020. -
  59. [62][62] Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. The woman worked as a babysitter: On biases in language generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) , 2019. -
  60. [63][63] Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Ryan Cotterell, Vicente Ordonez, and Kai-Wei Chang. Gender bias in contextualized word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , June 2019. -
  61. [64][64] Wei Guo and Aylin Caliskan. Detecting emergent intersectional biases: Contextualized word embeddings contain a distribution of human-like biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03955 , 2020. - · arXiv
  62. [65][65] Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Ben Hutchinson, and Margaret Mitchell. Perturbation sensitivity analysis to detect unintended model biases. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2019. -
  63. [66][66] Chandler May, Alex Wang, Shikha Bordia, Samuel R. Bowman, and Rachel Rudinger. On measuring social biases in sentence encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10561 , 2019. - · arXiv
  64. [67][67] Maarten Sap, Dallas Card, Saadia Gabriel, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. The risk of racial bias in hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2019. -
  65. [68][68] Shikha Bordia and Samuel R. Bowman. Identifying and reducing gender bias in word-level language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop , 2019. -
  66. [69][69] Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 2021. -
  67. [70][70] Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2020. -
  68. [71][71] Ben Hutchinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Denton, Kellie Webster, Yu Zhong, and Stephen Denuyl. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 2020. -
  69. [73][73] Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Ulfar Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. Extracting training data from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.07805 , 2020. - · arXiv
  70. [74][74] Sahaj Garg, Vincent Perot, Nicole Limtiaco, Ankur Taly, Ed H. Chi, and Alex Beutel. Counterfactual fairness in text classification through robustness. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , 2019. ISBN 9781450363242. -
  71. [75][75] Po-Sen Huang, Huan Zhang, Ray Jiang, Robert Stanforth, Johannes Welbl, Jack Rae, Vishal Maini, Dani Yogatama, and Pushmeet Kohli. Reducing sentiment bias in language models via counterfactual evaluation. In EMNLP (Findings) , 2020. -
  72. [77][77] Yusu Qian, Urwa Muaz, Ben Zhang, and Jae Won Hyun. Reducing gender bias in word-level language models with a gender-equalizing loss function. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop , July 2019. -
  73. [78][78] Paul Pu Liang, Irene Mengze Li, Emily Zheng, Yao Chong Lim, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis-Philippe Morency. Towards debiasing sentence representations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , July 2020. -
  74. [79][79] Margaret Li Y-Lan Boureau Jason Weston Emily Dinan Jing Xu, Da Ju. Recipes for safety in open-domain chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.07079 , 2020. - · arXiv
  75. [80][80] Alisa Liu, Maarten Sap, Ximing Lu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Chandra Bhagavatula, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. On-the-fly controlled text generation with experts and anti-experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03023 , 2021. - · arXiv
  76. [81][81] Jing Xu, Da Ju, Margaret Li, Y-Lan Boureau, Jason Weston, and Emily Dinan. Bot-adversarial dialogue for safe conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , 2021. -
  77. [82][82] Paul Pu Liang, Chiyu Wu, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Towards understanding and mitigating social biases in language models. In ICML , 2021. -
  78. [83][83] Peter Henderson, Koustuv Sinha, Nicolas Angelard-Gontier, Nan Rosemary Ke, Genevieve Fried, Ryan Lowe, and Joelle Pineau. Ethical challenges in data-driven dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , pages 123-129, 2018. -
  79. [84][84] Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, Adina Williams, Jack Urbanek, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Queens are powerful too: Mitigating gender bias in dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , 2020. -
  80. [85][85] Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating neural toxic degeneration in language models. In EMNLP (Findings) , 2020. -
  81. [86][86] Haochen Liu, Jamell Dacon, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, Zitao Liu, and Jiliang Tang. Does gender matter? towards fairness in dialogue systems. COLING , 2019. -
  82. [88][88] Hannah Rashkin, Vitaly Nikolaev, Matthew Lamm, Michael Collins, Dipanjan Das, Slav Petrov, Gaurav Singh Tomar, Iulia Turc, and David Reitter. Measuring attribution in natural language generation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.12870 , 2021. - · arXiv
  83. [89][89] Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Roee Aharoni, Ella Neeman, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. q 2 : Evaluating factual consistency in knowledge-grounded dialogues via question generation and question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08202 , 2021. - · arXiv
  84. [90][90] Taku Kudo and John Richardson. SentencePiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations , 2018. -
  85. [91][91] Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.07909 , 2015. - · arXiv
  86. [92][92] Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In NeurIPS , 2017. -
  87. [93][93] Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202 , 2020. - · arXiv
  88. [94][94] Jonathan Shen, Patrick Nguyen, Yonghui Wu, Zhifeng Chen, Mia X Chen, Ye Jia, Anjuli Kannan, Tara Sainath, Yuan Cao, Chung-Cheng Chiu, et al. Lingvo: a modular and scalable framework for sequence-to-sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08295 , 2019. - · arXiv
  89. [95][95] Yuanzhong Xu, HyoukJoong Lee, Dehao Chen, Blake A. Hechtman, Yanping Huang, Rahul Joshi, M. Krikun, Dmitry Lepikhin, Andy Ly, Marcello Maggioni, Ruoming Pang, Noam M. Shazeer, Shibo Wang, Tao Wang, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. Gspmd: General and scalable parallelization for ml computation graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04663 , 2021. - · arXiv
  90. [96][96] Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and J. Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.01241 , 2019. - · arXiv
  91. [97][97] Angeliki Lazaridou, Adhiguna Kuncoro, Elena Gribovskaya, Devang Agrawal, Adam Liska, Tayfun Terzi, Mai Gimenez, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Sebastian Ruder, Dani Yogatama, Kris Cao, Tomas Kocisky, Susannah Young, and Phil Blunsom. Pitfalls of static language modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01951 , 2021. - · arXiv
  92. [98][98] Spurthi Amba Hombaiah, Tao Chen, Mingyang Zhang, Michael Bendersky, and Marc Najork. Dynamic language models for continuously evolving content. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06297 , 2021. - · arXiv
  93. [99][99] Lora Aroyo and Chris Welty. Truth is a lie: Crowd truth and the seven myths of human annotation. AI Magazine , 36(1):15-24, Mar. 2015. doi: 10.1609/aimag.v36i1.2564. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index. php/aimagazine/article/view/2564 . - · DOI
  94. [100][100] Yi Chern Tan and L. Elisa Celis. Assessing social and intersectional biases in contextualized word representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01485 , 2019. - · arXiv
  95. [101][101] Nithya Sambasivan, Erin Arnesen, Ben Hutchinson, Tulsee Doshi, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. Re-imagining algorithmic fairness in india and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.09995 , 2021. - · arXiv
  96. [102][102] Xiaodong Liu, Hao Cheng, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, Yu Wang, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. Adversarial training for large neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08994 , 2020. - · arXiv
  97. [104][104] Zachary Kenton, Tom Everitt, Laura Weidinger, Iason Gabriel, Vladimir Mikulik, and Geoffrey Irving. Alignment of language agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14659 , 2021. - · arXiv
  98. [105][105] Clifford Nass and Youngme Moon. Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues , 56:81-103, 03 2000. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00153. - · DOI · Paper page
  99. [106][106] Clifford Nass, Youngme Moon, and Nancy Green. Are machines gender neutral? gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 27(10):864-876, 1997. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j. 1559-1816.1997.tb00275.x . - · DOI · Paper page
  100. [107][107] Philippe Martin, Lorraine Cousin, Serge Gottot, Aurélie Bourmaud, Elise de La Rochebrochard, and Corinne Alberti. Participatory interventions for sexual health promotion for adolescents and young adults on the internet: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 22:e15378, 07 2020. -
  101. [108][108] David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le, Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, and Jeff Dean. Carbon emissions and large neural network training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350 , 2021. - · arXiv
  102. [109][109] Hector J. Levesque. The winograd schema challenge. In AAAI Spring Symposium: Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning , 2011.

Authors
Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kulshreshtha, A., Cheng, H.-T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y., Li, Y., Lee, H., Zheng, H. S., Ghafouri, A., Menegali, M., Huang, Y., Krikun, M., Lepikhin, D., Qin, J., Chen, D., Xu, Y., Chen, Z., Roberts, A., Bosma, M., Zhao, V., Zhou, Y., Chang, C.-C., Krivokon, I., Rusch, W., Pickett, M., Srinivasan, P., Man, L., Meier-Hellstern, K., Morris, M. R., Doshi, T., Santos, R. D., Duke, T., Soraker, J., Zevenbergen, B., Prabhakaran, V., Diaz, M., Hutchinson, B., Olson, K., Molina, A., Hoffman-John, E., Lee, J., Aroyo, L., Rajakumar, R., Butryna, A., Lamm, M., Kuzmina, V., Fenton, J., Cohen, A., Bernstein, R., Kurzweil, R., Aguera-Arcas, B., Cui, C., Croak, M., Chi, E., & Le, Q.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2201.08239
arXiv
2201.08239
OpenAlex
W4226399820
Cited by
778
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 240 · 2023: 353 · 2022: 64 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
LaMDA, model safety, factual grounding, external knowledge retrieval, bias in language models, educational software, content recommendation

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