Score breakdown

Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback

paper-0144 · paper · 2022

Long Ouyang et al.

InstructGPT; RLHF at scale, the technique behind aligned chat models.

Abstract

Making language models bigger does not inherently make them better at following a user's intent. For example, large language models can generate outputs that are untruthful, toxic, or simply not helpful to the user. In other words, these models are not aligned with their users. In this paper, we show an avenue for aligning language models with user intent on a wide range of tasks by fine-tuning with human feedback. Starting with a set of labeler-written prompts and prompts submitted through the OpenAI API, we collect a dataset of labeler demonstrations of the desired model behavior, which we use to fine-tune GPT-3 using supervised learning. We then collect a dataset of rankings of model outputs, which we use to further fine-tune this supervised model using reinforcement learning from human feedback. We call the resulting models InstructGPT. In human evaluations on our prompt distribution, outputs from the 1.3B parameter InstructGPT model are preferred to outputs from the 175B GPT-3, despite having 100x fewer parameters. Moreover, InstructGPT models show improvements in truthfulness and reductions in toxic output generation while having minimal performance regressions on public NLP datasets. Even though InstructGPT still makes simple mistakes, our results show that fine-tuning with human feedback is a promising direction for aligning language models with human intent. [OpenAlex]

Academic, score -0.1939

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent4292.00.0193160.50.009658OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.1recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent7.00.4285710.050.021429OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Broad Influence, score -0.0247

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent4292.00.0193160.20.003863OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent7.00.4285710.40.171429OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.075recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Governance Practitioner, score -0.2773

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent4292.00.0193160.250.004829OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.15recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent7.00.4285710.10.042857OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.175recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

A rank is not a verdict on intrinsic worth. It is a transparent output of declared evidence, weights, and missing-data rules at a specific release date.

Disagree with this rank or a number? Challenge it with your evidence. Every challenge gets a public identifier and a published resolution.