Large language models have been shown to achieve remarkable performance across a variety of natural language tasks using few-shot learning , which drastically reduces the number of task-speciﬁc training examples needed to adapt the model to a particular application. To further our understanding of the impact of scale on few-shot learning, we trained a 540-billion parameter, densely activated, Transformer language model, which we call Pathways Language Model (PaLM). We trained PaLM on 6144 TPU v4 chips using Pathways, a new ML system which enables highly eﬃcient training across multiple TPU Pods. We demonstrate continued beneﬁts of scaling by achieving state-of-the-art few-shot learning results on hundreds of language understanding and generation benchmarks. On a number of these tasks, PaLM 540B achieves breakthrough performance, outperforming the ﬁnetuned state-of-the-art on a suite of multi-step reasoning tasks, and outperforming average human performance on the recently released BIG-bench benchmark. A signiﬁcant number of BIG-bench tasks showed discontinuous improvements from model scale, meaning that performance steeply increased as we scaled to our largest model. PaLM also has strong capabilities in multilingual tasks and source code generation, which we demonstrate on a wide array of benchmarks. We additionally provide a comprehensive analysis on bias and toxicity, and study the extent of training data memorization with respect to model scale. Finally, we discuss the ethical considerations related to large language models and discuss potential mitigation strategies.

PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways

The past 3 years of work in NLP have been characterized by the development and deployment of ever larger language models, especially for English. BERT, its variants, GPT-2/3, and others, most recently Switch-C, have pushed the boundaries of the possible both through architectural innovations and through sheer size. Using these pretrained models and the methodology of fine-tuning them for specific tasks, researchers have extended the state of the art on a wide array of tasks as measured by leaderboards on specific benchmarks for English. In this paper, we take a step back and ask: How big is too big? What are the possible risks associated with this technology and what paths are available for mitigating those risks? We provide recommendations including weighing the environmental and financial costs first, investing resources into curating and carefully documenting datasets rather than ingesting everything on the web, carrying out pre-development exercises evaluating how the planned approach fits into research and development goals and supports stakeholder values, and encouraging research directions beyond ever larger language models.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922

On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? &#x1f99c;

Authored by Dr. Safiya U. Noble, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California Annenberg School of Communication, this text is one of the preeminent works that explicitly addresse...

Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism

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.

LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications

We survey 146 papers analyzing "bias" in NLP systems, finding that their motivations are often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative reasoning, despite the fact that analyzing "bias" is an inherently normative process. We further find that these papers' proposed quantitative techniques for measuring or mitigating "bias" are poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage with the relevant literature outside of NLP. Based on these findings, we describe the beginnings of a path forward by proposing three recommendations that should guide work analyzing "bias" in NLP systems. These recommendations rest on a greater recognition of the relationships between language and social hierarchies, encouraging researchers and practitioners to articulate their conceptualizations of "bias"---i.e., what kinds of system behaviors are harmful, in what ways, to whom, and why, as well as the normative reasoning underlying these statements---and to center work around the lived experiences of members of communities affected by NLP systems, while interrogating and reimagining the power relations between technologists and such communities.

Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP

Building equitable and inclusive NLP technologies demands consideration of whether and how social attitudes are represented in ML models. In particular, representations encoded in models often inadvertently perpetuate undesirable social biases from the data on which they are trained. In this paper, we present evidence of such undesirable biases towards mentions of disability in two different English language models: toxicity prediction and sentiment analysis. Next, we demonstrate that the neural embeddings that are the critical first step in most NLP pipelines similarly contain undesirable biases towards mentions of disability. We end by highlighting topical biases in the discourse about disability which may contribute to the observed model biases; for instance, gun violence, homelessness, and drug addiction are over-represented in texts discussing mental illness.

Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilities

Persons with disabilities face many barriers to full participation in society, and the rapid advancement of technology has the potential to create ever more. Building equitable and inclusive technologies for people with disabilities demands paying attention to more than accessibility, but also to how social attitudes towards disability are represented within technology. Representations perpetuated by machine learning (ML) models often inadvertently encode undesirable social biases from the data on which they are trained. This can result, for example, in text classification models producing very different predictions for I am a person with mental illness, and I am a tall person. In this paper, we present evidence of such biases in existing ML models, and in data used for model development. First, we demonstrate that a machine-learned model to moderate conversations classifies texts which mention disability as more "toxic". Similarly, a machine-learned sentiment analysis model rates texts which mention disability as more negative. Second, we demonstrate that neural text representation models that are critical to many ML applications can also contain undesirable biases towards mentions of disabilities. Third, we show that the data used to develop such models reflects topical biases in social discourse which may explain such biases in the models - for instance, gun violence, homelessness, and drug addiction are over-represented in discussions about mental illness.

Stephen Denuyl

Papers

Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilities

Unintended machine learning biases as social barriers for persons with disabilitiess

Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilities