DeepEval is a simple-to-use, open-source LLM evaluation framework, for evaluating and testing large-language model systems. It is similar to Pytest but specialized for unit testing LLM outputs. DeepEval incorporates the latest research to evaluate LLM outputs based on metrics such as G-Eval, hallucination, answer relevancy, RAGAS, etc., which uses LLMs and various other NLP models that runs locally on your machine for evaluation.
Whether your application is implemented via RAG or fine-tuning, LangChain or LlamaIndex, DeepEval has you covered. With it, you can easily determine the optimal hyperparameters to improve your RAG pipeline, prevent prompt drifting, or even transition from OpenAI to hosting your own Llama3 with confidence. — Read More
Tag Archives: Trust
AI Mistakes Are Very Different from Human Mistakes
Humans make mistakes all the time. All of us do, every day, in tasks both new and routine. Some of our mistakes are minor and some are catastrophic. Mistakes can break trust with our friends, lose the confidence of our bosses, and sometimes be the difference between life and death.
Over the millennia, we have created security systems to deal with the sorts of mistakes humans commonly make. … Humanity is now rapidly integrating a wholly different kind of mistake-maker into society: AI. Technologies like large language models (LLMs) can perform many cognitive tasks traditionally fulfilled by humans, but they make plenty of mistakes. It seems ridiculous when chatbots tell you to eat rocks or add glue to pizza. But it’s not the frequency or severity of AI systems’ mistakes that differentiates them from human mistakes. It’s their weirdness. AI systems do not make mistakes in the same ways that humans do.
Much of the friction—and risk—associated with our use of AI arise from that difference. We need to invent new security systems that adapt to these differences and prevent harm from AI mistakes. — Read More
Trust Issues in AI
For a technology that seems startling in its modernity, AI sure has a long history. Google Translate, OpenAI chatbots, and Meta AI image generators are built on decades of advancements in linguistics, signal processing, statistics, and other fields going back to the early days of computing—and, often, on seed funding from the U.S. Department of Defense. But today’s tools are hardly the intentional product of the diverse generations of innovators that came before. We agree with Morozov that the “refuseniks,” as he calls them, are wrong to see AI as “irreparably tainted” by its origins. AI is better understood as a creative, global field of human endeavor that has been largely captured by U.S. venture capitalists, private equity, and Big Tech. But that was never the inevitable outcome, and it doesn’t need to stay that way. — Read More
DeepMind’s SCoRe shows LLMs can use their internal knowledge to correct their mistakes
While large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly effective at complicated tasks, there are many cases where they can’t get the correct answer on the first try. This is why there is growing interest in enabling LLMs to spot and correct their mistakes, also known as “self-correction.” However, current attempts at self-correction are limited and have requirements that often cannot be met in real-world situations.
In a new paper, researchers at Google DeepMind introduce Self-Correction via Reinforcement Learning (SCoRe), a novel technique that significantly improves the self-correction capabilities of LLMs using only self-generated data. SCoRe can be a valuable tool for making LLMs more robust and reliable and opens new possibilities for enhancing their reasoning and problem-solving abilities. — Read More
Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning
Self-correction is a highly desirable capability of large language models (LLMs), yet it has consistently been found to be largely ineffective in modern LLMs. Existing approaches for training self-correction either require multiple models or rely on a more capable model or other forms of supervision. To this end, we develop a multi-turn online reinforcement learning (RL) approach, SCoRe, that significantly improves an LLM’s self-correction ability using entirely self-generated data. To build SCoRe, we first show that variants of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on offline model-generated correction traces are insufficient for instilling self-correction behavior. In particular, we observe that training via SFT either suffers from a distribution mismatch between the training data and the model’s own responses or implicitly prefers only a certain mode of correction behavior that is often not effective at test time. SCoRe addresses these challenges by training under the model’s own distribution of self-generated correction traces and using appropriate regularization to steer the learning process into learning a self-correction strategy that is effective at test time as opposed to simply fitting high-reward responses for a given prompt. This regularization prescribes running a first phase of RL on a base model to generate a policy initialization that is less susceptible to collapse and then using a reward bonus to amplify self-correction during training. When applied to Gemini 1.0 Pro and 1.5 Flash models, we find that SCoRe achieves state-of-the-art self-correction performance, improving the base models’ self-correction by 15.6% and 9.1% respectively on the MATH and HumanEval benchmarks. — Read More
Big tech fails transparency test: Gary Marcus on what we should demand of AI
Transparency — being clear about what you’ve done and what the impact is. It sounds wonky, but matters enormously. Companies like Microsoft often give lip service to “transparency,” but provide precious little actual transparency into how their systems work, how they are trained, or how they are tested internally, let alone what trouble they may have caused.
We need to know what goes into [AI] systems, so we can understand their biases (political and social), their reliance on purloined works, and how to mitigate their many risks. We need to know how they are tested, so we can know whether they are safe.
Companies don’t really want to share, which doesn’t mean they don’t pretend otherwise. … [Y]ou can’t find out enough about what they were trained on to do good science (e.g., in order to figure out how well the models are reasoning versus whether they simply regurgitate what they are trained on). — Read More –
Deception abilities emerged in large language models
Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. Thus, aligning them with human values is of great importance. However, given the steady increase in reasoning abilities, future LLMs are under suspicion of becoming able to deceive human operators and utilizing this ability to bypass monitoring efforts. As a prerequisite to this, LLMs need to possess a conceptual understanding of deception strategies. This study reveals that such strategies emerged in state-of-the-art LLMs, but were nonexistent in earlier LLMs. We conduct a series of experiments showing that state-of-the-art LLMs are able to understand and induce false beliefs in other agents, that their performance in complex deception scenarios can be amplified utilizing chain-of-thought reasoning, and that eliciting Machiavellianism in LLMs can trigger misaligned deceptive behavior. GPT-4, for instance, exhibits deceptive behavior in simple test scenarios 99.16% of the time (P < 0.001). In complex second-order deception test scenarios where the aim is to mislead someone who expects to be deceived, GPT-4 resorts to deceptive behavior 71.46% of the time (P < 0.001) when augmented with chain-of-thought reasoning. In sum, revealing hitherto unknown machine behavior in LLMs, our study contributes to the nascent field of machine psychology. — Read More
How does ChatGPT ‘think’? Psychology and neuroscience crack open AI large language models
David Bau is very familiar with the idea that computer systems are becoming so complicated it’s hard to keep track of how they operate. “I spent 20 years as a software engineer, working on really complex systems. And there’s always this problem,” says Bau, a computer scientist at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.
But with conventional software, someone with inside knowledge can usually deduce what’s going on, Bau says. If a website’s ranking drops in a Google search, for example, someone at Google — where Bau worked for a dozen years — will have a good idea why. “Here’s what really terrifies me” about the current breed of artificial intelligence (AI), he says: “there is no such understanding”, even among the people building it. — Read More
Is AI lying to me? Scientists warn of growing capacity for deception
They can outwit humans at board games, decode the structure of proteins and hold a passable conversation, but as AI systems have grown in sophistication so has their capacity for deception, scientists warn.
The analysis, by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers, identifies wide-ranging instances of AI systems double-crossing opponents, bluffing and pretending to be human. One system even altered its behaviour during mock safety tests, raising the prospect of auditors being lured into a false sense of security. — Read More
Read the Paper
Fine-tuning Language Models for Factuality
he fluency and creativity of large pre-trained language models (LLMs) have led to their widespread use, sometimes even as a replacement for traditional search engines. Yet language models are prone to making convincing but factually inaccurate claims, often referred to as ‘hallucinations.’ These errors can inadvertently spread misinformation or harmfully perpetuate misconceptions. Further, manual fact-checking of model responses is a time-consuming process, making human factuality labels expensive to acquire. In this work, we fine-tune language models to be more factual, without human labeling and targeting more open-ended generation settings than past work. We leverage two key recent innovations in NLP to do so. First, several recent works have proposed methods for judging the factuality of open-ended text by measuring consistency with an external knowledge base or simply a large model’s confidence scores. Second, the direct preference optimization algorithm enables straightforward fine-tuning of language models on objectives other than supervised imitation, using a preference ranking over possible model responses. We show that learning from automatically generated factuality preference rankings, generated either through existing retrieval systems or our novel retrieval-free approach, significantly improves the factuality (percent of generated claims that are correct) of Llama-2 on held-out topics compared with RLHF or decoding strategies targeted at factuality. At 7B scale, compared to Llama-2-chat, we observe 58% and 40% reduction in factual error rate when generating biographies and answering medical questions, respectively. — Read More
Rick's Cafe AI 