Search

AI companions based on large language models can role-play and converse very naturally. When value conflicts arise between the AI companion and the user, it may offend or upset the user. Yet, little research has examined such conflicts. We first conducted a formative study that analyzed 151 user complaints about conflicts with AI companions, providing design implications for our study. Based on these, we created Minion, a technology probe to help users resolve human-AI value conflicts. Minion applies a user-empowerment intervention method that provides suggestions by combining expert-driven and user-driven conflict resolution strategies. We conducted a technology probe study, creating 40 value conflict scenarios on Character.AI and Talkie. 22 participants completed 274 tasks and successfully resolved conflicts 94.16% of the time. We summarize user responses, preferences, and needs in resolving value conflicts, and propose design implications to reduce conflicts and empower users to resolve them more effectively., Comment: 18 pages, 5 figures

The ideal LLM content moderation system would be both structurally interpretable (so its decisions can be explained to users) and steerable (to reflect a community's values or align to safety standards). However, current systems fall short on both of these dimensions. To address this gap, we present SafetyAnalyst, a novel LLM safety moderation framework. Given a prompt, SafetyAnalyst creates a structured "harm-benefit tree," which identifies 1) the actions that could be taken if a compliant response were provided, 2) the harmful and beneficial effects of those actions (along with their likelihood, severity, and immediacy), and 3) the stakeholders that would be impacted by those effects. It then aggregates this structured representation into a harmfulness score based on a parameterized set of safety preferences, which can be transparently aligned to particular values. Using extensive harm-benefit features generated by SOTA LLMs on 19k prompts, we fine-tuned an open-weight LM to specialize in generating harm-benefit trees through symbolic knowledge distillation. On a comprehensive set of prompt safety benchmarks, we show that our system (average F1=0.75) outperforms existing LLM safety moderation systems (average F1$<$0.72) on prompt harmfulness classification, while offering the additional advantages of interpretability and steerability.

In this work, we tackle the challenge of embedding realistic human personality traits into LLMs. Previous approaches have primarily focused on prompt-based methods that describe the behavior associated with the desired personality traits, suffering from realism and validity issues. To address these limitations, we introduce BIG5-CHAT, a large-scale dataset containing 100,000 dialogues designed to ground models in how humans express their personality in text. Leveraging this dataset, we explore Supervised Fine-Tuning and Direct Preference Optimization as training-based methods to align LLMs more naturally with human personality patterns. Our methods outperform prompting on personality assessments such as BFI and IPIP-NEO, with trait correlations more closely matching human data. Furthermore, our experiments reveal that models trained to exhibit higher conscientiousness, higher agreeableness, lower extraversion, and lower neuroticism display better performance on reasoning tasks, aligning with psychological findings on how these traits impact human cognitive performance. To our knowledge, this work is the first comprehensive study to demonstrate how training-based methods can shape LLM personalities through learning from real human behaviors.

Large language models excel at performing inference over text to extract information, summarize information, or generate additional text. These inference capabilities are implicated in a variety of ethical harms spanning surveillance, labor displacement, and IP/copyright theft. While many policy, legal, and technical mitigations have been proposed to counteract these harms, these mitigations typically require cooperation from institutions that move slower than technical advances (i.e., governments) or that have few incentives to act to counteract these harms (i.e., the corporations that create and profit from these LLMs). In this paper, we define and build "data defenses" -- a novel strategy that directly empowers data owners to block LLMs from performing inference on their data. We create data defenses by developing a method to automatically generate adversarial prompt injections that, when added to input text, significantly reduce the ability of LLMs to accurately infer personally identifying information about the subject of the input text or to use copyrighted text in inference. We examine the ethics of enabling such direct resistance to LLM inference, and argue that making data defenses that resist and subvert LLMs enables the realization of important values such as data ownership, data sovereignty, and democratic control over AI systems. We verify that our data defenses are cheap and fast to generate, work on the latest commercial and open-source LLMs, resistance to countermeasures, and are robust to several different attack settings. Finally, we consider the security implications of LLM data defenses and outline several future research directions in this area. Our code is available at https://github.com/wagnew3/LLMDataDefenses and a tool for using our defenses to protect text against LLM inference is at https://wagnew3.github.io/LLM-Data-Defenses/.

AI agents are increasingly autonomous in their interactions with human users and tools, leading to increased interactional safety risks. We present HAICOSYSTEM, a framework examining AI agent safety within diverse and complex social interactions. HAICOSYSTEM features a modular sandbox environment that simulates multi-turn interactions between human users and AI agents, where the AI agents are equipped with a variety of tools (e.g., patient management platforms) to navigate diverse scenarios (e.g., a user attempting to access other patients' profiles). To examine the safety of AI agents in these interactions, we develop a comprehensive multi-dimensional evaluation framework that uses metrics covering operational, content-related, societal, and legal risks. Through running 1840 simulations based on 92 scenarios across seven domains (e.g., healthcare, finance, education), we demonstrate that HAICOSYSTEM can emulate realistic user-AI interactions and complex tool use by AI agents. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art LLMs, both proprietary and open-sourced, exhibit safety risks in over 50\% cases, with models generally showing higher risks when interacting with simulated malicious users. Our findings highlight the ongoing challenge of building agents that can safely navigate complex interactions, particularly when faced with malicious users. To foster the AI agent safety ecosystem, we release a code platform that allows practitioners to create custom scenarios, simulate interactions, and evaluate the safety and performance of their agents., Comment: Both the second and third authors contributed equally

To be safely and successfully deployed, LLMs must simultaneously satisfy truthfulness and utility goals. Yet, often these two goals compete (e.g., an AI agent assisting a used car salesman selling a car with flaws), partly due to ambiguous or misleading user instructions. We propose AI-LieDar, a framework to study how LLM-based agents navigate scenarios with utility-truthfulness conflicts in a multi-turn interactive setting. We design a set of realistic scenarios where language agents are instructed to achieve goals that are in conflict with being truthful during a multi-turn conversation with simulated human agents. To evaluate the truthfulness at large scale, we develop a truthfulness detector inspired by psychological literature to assess the agents' responses. Our experiment demonstrates that all models are truthful less than 50% of the time, although truthfulness and goal achievement (utility) rates vary across models. We further test the steerability of LLMs towards truthfulness, finding that models follow malicious instructions to deceive, and even truth-steered models can still lie. These findings reveal the complex nature of truthfulness in LLMs and underscore the importance of further research to ensure the safe and reliable deployment of LLMs and AI agents.

Large language model-based AI companions are increasingly viewed by users as friends or romantic partners, leading to deep emotional bonds. However, they can generate biased, discriminatory, and harmful outputs. Recently, users are taking the initiative to address these harms and re-align AI companions. We introduce the concept of user-driven value alignment, where users actively identify, challenge, and attempt to correct AI outputs they perceive as harmful, aiming to guide the AI to better align with their values. We analyzed 77 social media posts about discriminatory AI statements and conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 experienced users. Our analysis revealed six common types of discriminatory statements perceived by users, how users make sense of those AI behaviors, and seven user-driven alignment strategies, such as gentle persuasion and anger expression. We discuss implications for supporting user-driven value alignment in future AI systems, where users and their communities have greater agency., Comment: 17 pages, 1 figure

Multi-agent systems, powered by large language models, have shown great abilities across various tasks due to the collaboration of expert agents, each focusing on a specific domain. However, when agents are deployed separately, there is a risk that malicious users may introduce malicious agents who generate incorrect or irrelevant results that are too stealthy to be identified by other non-specialized agents. Therefore, this paper investigates two essential questions: (1) What is the resilience of various multi-agent system structures (e.g., A$\rightarrow$B$\rightarrow$C, A$\leftrightarrow$B$\leftrightarrow$C) under malicious agents, on different downstream tasks? (2) How can we increase system resilience to defend against malicious agents? To simulate malicious agents, we devise two methods, AutoTransform and AutoInject, to transform any agent into a malicious one while preserving its functional integrity. We run comprehensive experiments on four downstream multi-agent systems tasks, namely code generation, math problems, translation, and text evaluation. Results suggest that the "hierarchical" multi-agent structure, i.e., A$\rightarrow$(B$\leftrightarrow$C), exhibits superior resilience with the lowest performance drop of $23.6\%$, compared to $46.4\%$ and $49.8\%$ of other two structures. Additionally, we show the promise of improving multi-agent system resilience by demonstrating that two defense methods, introducing a mechanism for each agent to challenge others' outputs, or an additional agent to review and correct messages, can enhance system resilience. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/CUHK-ARISE/MAS-Resilience., Comment: 11 pages of main text; 9 pages of appendix; Added GPT-4o Results

The ability to communicate uncertainty, risk, and limitation is crucial for the safety of large language models. However, current evaluations of these abilities rely on simple calibration, asking whether the language generated by the model matches appropriate probabilities. Instead, evaluation of this aspect of LLM communication should focus on the behaviors of their human interlocutors: how much do they rely on what the LLM says? Here we introduce an interaction-centered evaluation framework called Rel-A.I. (pronounced "rely"}) that measures whether humans rely on LLM generations. We use this framework to study how reliance is affected by contextual features of the interaction (e.g, the knowledge domain that is being discussed), or the use of greetings communicating warmth or competence (e.g., "I'm happy to help!"). We find that contextual characteristics significantly affect human reliance behavior. For example, people rely 10% more on LMs when responding to questions involving calculations and rely 30% more on LMs that are perceived as more competent. Our results show that calibration and language quality alone are insufficient in evaluating the risks of human-LM interactions, and illustrate the need to consider features of the interactional context., Comment: Preprint

We introduce WildTeaming, an automatic LLM safety red-teaming framework that mines in-the-wild user-chatbot interactions to discover 5.7K unique clusters of novel jailbreak tactics, and then composes multiple tactics for systematic exploration of novel jailbreaks. Compared to prior work that performed red-teaming via recruited human workers, gradient-based optimization, or iterative revision with LLMs, our work investigates jailbreaks from chatbot users who were not specifically instructed to break the system. WildTeaming reveals previously unidentified vulnerabilities of frontier LLMs, resulting in up to 4.6x more diverse and successful adversarial attacks compared to state-of-the-art jailbreak methods. While many datasets exist for jailbreak evaluation, very few open-source datasets exist for jailbreak training, as safety training data has been closed even when model weights are open. With WildTeaming we create WildJailbreak, a large-scale open-source synthetic safety dataset with 262K vanilla (direct request) and adversarial (complex jailbreak) prompt-response pairs. To mitigate exaggerated safety behaviors, WildJailbreak provides two contrastive types of queries: 1) harmful queries (vanilla & adversarial) and 2) benign queries that resemble harmful queries in form but contain no harm. As WildJailbreak considerably upgrades the quality and scale of existing safety resources, it uniquely enables us to examine the scaling effects of data and the interplay of data properties and model capabilities during safety training. Through extensive experiments, we identify the training properties that enable an ideal balance of safety behaviors: appropriate safeguarding without over-refusal, effective handling of vanilla and adversarial queries, and minimal, if any, decrease in general capabilities. All components of WildJailbeak contribute to achieving balanced safety behaviors of models.

Empathy serves as a cornerstone in enabling prosocial behaviors, and can be evoked through sharing of personal experiences in stories. While empathy is influenced by narrative content, intuitively, people respond to the way a story is told as well, through narrative style. Yet the relationship between empathy and narrative style is not fully understood. In this work, we empirically examine and quantify this relationship between style and empathy using LLMs and large-scale crowdsourcing studies. We introduce a novel, theory-based taxonomy, HEART (Human Empathy and Narrative Taxonomy) that delineates elements of narrative style that can lead to empathy with the narrator of a story. We establish the performance of LLMs in extracting narrative elements from HEART, showing that prompting with our taxonomy leads to reasonable, human-level annotations beyond what prior lexicon-based methods can do. To show empirical use of our taxonomy, we collect a dataset of empathy judgments of stories via a large-scale crowdsourcing study with N=2,624 participants. We show that narrative elements extracted via LLMs, in particular, vividness of emotions and plot volume, can elucidate the pathways by which narrative style cultivates empathy towards personal stories. Our work suggests that such models can be used for narrative analyses that lead to human-centered social and behavioral insights., Comment: Accepted to EMNLP 2024

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to their extensive global deployment, and ensuring their safety calls for comprehensive and multilingual toxicity evaluations. However, existing toxicity benchmarks are overwhelmingly focused on English, posing serious risks to deploying LLMs in other languages. We address this by introducing PolygloToxicityPrompts (PTP), the first large-scale multilingual toxicity evaluation benchmark of 425K naturally occurring prompts spanning 17 languages. We overcome the scarcity of naturally occurring toxicity in web-text and ensure coverage across languages with varying resources by automatically scraping over 100M web-text documents. Using PTP, we investigate research questions to study the impact of model size, prompt language, and instruction and preference-tuning methods on toxicity by benchmarking over 60 LLMs. Notably, we find that toxicity increases as language resources decrease or model size increases. Although instruction- and preference-tuning reduce toxicity, the choice of preference-tuning method does not have any significant impact. Our findings shed light on crucial shortcomings of LLM safeguarding and highlight areas for future research., Comment: Accepted to COLM 2024

Humans often express their communicative intents indirectly or non-literally, which requires their interlocutors -- human or AI -- to understand beyond the literal meaning of words. While most existing work has focused on discriminative evaluations, we present a new approach to generatively evaluate large language models' (LLMs') intention understanding by examining their responses to non-literal utterances. Ideally, an LLM should respond in line with the true intention of a non-literal utterance, not its literal interpretation. Our findings show that LLMs struggle to generate pragmatically relevant responses to non-literal language, achieving only 50-55% accuracy on average. While explicitly providing oracle intentions significantly improves performance (e.g., 75% for Mistral-Instruct), this still indicates challenges in leveraging given intentions to produce appropriate responses. Using chain-of-thought to make models spell out intentions yields much smaller gains (60% for Mistral-Instruct). These findings suggest that LLMs are not yet effective pragmatic interlocutors, highlighting the need for better approaches for modeling intentions and utilizing them for pragmatic generation.

To be effectively and safely deployed to global user populations, large language models (LLMs) must adapt outputs to user values and culture, not just know about them. We introduce NormAd, an evaluation framework to assess LLMs' cultural adaptability, specifically measuring their ability to judge social acceptability across different levels of cultural norm specificity, from abstract values to explicit social norms. As an instantiation of our framework, we create NormAd-Eti, a benchmark of 2.6k situational descriptions representing social-etiquette related cultural norms from 75 countries. Through comprehensive experiments on NormAd-Eti, we find that LLMs struggle to accurately judge social acceptability across these varying degrees of cultural contexts and show stronger adaptability to English-centric cultures over those from the Global South. Even in the simplest setting where the relevant social norms are provided, our best models' performance (<82%) lags behind humans (>95%). In settings with abstract values and country information, model performance drops substantially (<60%), while human accuracy remains high (>90%). Furthermore, we find that models are better at recognizing socially acceptable versus unacceptable situations. Our findings showcase the current pitfalls in socio-cultural reasoning of LLMs which hinder their adaptability for global audiences., Comment: Preprint. In Review

General purpose AI, such as ChatGPT, seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. However, the governance and development of AI still remain in the hands of a few, and the pace of development is accelerating without a comprehensive assessment of risks. As a first step towards democratic risk assessment and design of general purpose AI, we introduce PARTICIP-AI, a carefully designed framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts. Our framework allows us to study more nuanced and detailed public opinions on AI through collecting use cases, surfacing diverse harms through risk assessment under alternate scenarios (i.e., developing and not developing a use case), and illuminating tensions over AI development through making a concluding choice on its development. To showcase the promise of our framework towards informing democratic AI development, we run a medium-scale study with inputs from 295 demographically diverse participants. Our analyses show that participants' responses emphasize applications for personal life and society, contrasting with most current AI development's business focus. We also surface diverse set of envisioned harms such as distrust in AI and institutions, complementary to those defined by experts. Furthermore, we found that perceived impact of not developing use cases significantly predicted participants' judgements of whether AI use cases should be developed, and highlighted lay users' concerns of techno-solutionism. We conclude with a discussion on how frameworks like PARTICIP-AI can further guide democratic AI development and governance., Comment: AIES 2024, 34 pages, 4 figures, 23 tables

Humans learn social skills through both imitation and social interaction. This social learning process is largely understudied by existing research on building language agents. Motivated by this gap, we propose an interactive learning method, SOTOPIA-$\pi$, improving the social intelligence of language agents. This method leverages behavior cloning and self-reinforcement training on filtered social interaction data according to large language model (LLM) ratings. We show that our training method allows a 7B LLM to reach the social goal completion ability of an expert model (GPT-4-based agent), while improving the safety of language agents and maintaining general QA ability on the MMLU benchmark. We also find that this training paradigm uncovers some difficulties in LLM-based evaluation of social intelligence: LLM-based evaluators overestimate the abilities of the language agents trained specifically for social interaction.

Recent advances in large language models (LLM) have enabled richer social simulations, allowing for the study of various social phenomena. However, most recent work has used a more omniscient perspective on these simulations (e.g., single LLM to generate all interlocutors), which is fundamentally at odds with the non-omniscient, information asymmetric interactions that involve humans and AI agents in the real world. To examine these differences, we develop an evaluation framework to simulate social interactions with LLMs in various settings (omniscient, non-omniscient). Our experiments show that LLMs perform better in unrealistic, omniscient simulation settings but struggle in ones that more accurately reflect real-world conditions with information asymmetry. Our findings indicate that addressing information asymmetry remains a fundamental challenge for LLM-based agents., Comment: EMNLP 2024

Counterspeech, i.e., direct responses against hate speech, has become an important tool to address the increasing amount of hate online while avoiding censorship. Although AI has been proposed to help scale up counterspeech efforts, this raises questions of how exactly AI could assist in this process, since counterspeech is a deeply empathetic and agentic process for those involved. In this work, we aim to answer this question, by conducting in-depth interviews with 10 extensively experienced counterspeakers and a large scale public survey with 342 everyday social media users. In participant responses, we identified four main types of barriers and AI needs related to resources, training, impact, and personal harms. However, our results also revealed overarching concerns of authenticity, agency, and functionality in using AI tools for counterspeech. To conclude, we discuss considerations for designing AI assistants that lower counterspeaking barriers without jeopardizing its meaning and purpose., Comment: To appear in CHI 2024. 22 pages, 3 figures, 7 tables

As natural language becomes the default interface for human-AI interaction, there is a need for LMs to appropriately communicate uncertainties in downstream applications. In this work, we investigate how LMs incorporate confidence in responses via natural language and how downstream users behave in response to LM-articulated uncertainties. We examine publicly deployed models and find that LMs are reluctant to express uncertainties when answering questions even when they produce incorrect responses. LMs can be explicitly prompted to express confidences, but tend to be overconfident, resulting in high error rates (an average of 47%) among confident responses. We test the risks of LM overconfidence by conducting human experiments and show that users rely heavily on LM generations, whether or not they are marked by certainty. Lastly, we investigate the preference-annotated datasets used in post training alignment and find that humans are biased against texts with uncertainty. Our work highlights new safety harms facing human-LM interactions and proposes design recommendations and mitigating strategies moving forward., Comment: ACL 2024 (Camera Ready)

Riveter provides a complete easy-to-use pipeline for analyzing verb connotations associated with entities in text corpora. We prepopulate the package with connotation frames of sentiment, power, and agency, which have demonstrated usefulness for capturing social phenomena, such as gender bias, in a broad range of corpora. For decades, lexical frameworks have been foundational tools in computational social science, digital humanities, and natural language processing, facilitating multifaceted analysis of text corpora. But working with verb-centric lexica specifically requires natural language processing skills, reducing their accessibility to other researchers. By organizing the language processing pipeline, providing complete lexicon scores and visualizations for all entities in a corpus, and providing functionality for users to target specific research questions, Riveter greatly improves the accessibility of verb lexica and can facilitate a broad range of future research.

Story detection in online communities is a challenging task as stories are scattered across communities and interwoven with non-storytelling spans within a single text. We address this challenge by building and releasing the StorySeeker toolkit, including a richly annotated dataset of 502 Reddit posts and comments, a detailed codebook adapted to the social media context, and models to predict storytelling at the document and span levels. Our dataset is sampled from hundreds of popular English-language Reddit communities ranging across 33 topic categories, and it contains fine-grained expert annotations, including binary story labels, story spans, and event spans. We evaluate a range of detection methods using our data, and we identify the distinctive textual features of online storytelling, focusing on storytelling spans. We illuminate distributional characteristics of storytelling on a large community-centric social media platform, and we also conduct a case study on r/ChangeMyView, where storytelling is used as one of many persuasive strategies, illustrating that our data and models can be used for both inter- and intra-community research. Finally, we discuss implications of our tools and analyses for narratology and the study of online communities.

Counterspeech, i.e., responses to counteract potential harms of hateful speech, has become an increasingly popular solution to address online hate speech without censorship. However, properly countering hateful language requires countering and dispelling the underlying inaccurate stereotypes implied by such language. In this work, we draw from psychology and philosophy literature to craft six psychologically inspired strategies to challenge the underlying stereotypical implications of hateful language. We first examine the convincingness of each of these strategies through a user study, and then compare their usages in both human- and machine-generated counterspeech datasets. Our results show that human-written counterspeech uses countering strategies that are more specific to the implied stereotype (e.g., counter examples to the stereotype, external factors about the stereotype's origins), whereas machine-generated counterspeech uses less specific strategies (e.g., generally denouncing the hatefulness of speech). Furthermore, machine-generated counterspeech often employs strategies that humans deem less convincing compared to human-produced counterspeech. Our findings point to the importance of accounting for the underlying stereotypical implications of speech when generating counterspeech and for better machine reasoning about anti-stereotypical examples., Comment: EMNLP 2023 Findings, 19 pages

The interactive use of large language models (LLMs) in AI assistants (at work, home, etc.) introduces a new set of inference-time privacy risks: LLMs are fed different types of information from multiple sources in their inputs and are expected to reason about what to share in their outputs, for what purpose and with whom, within a given context. In this work, we draw attention to the highly critical yet overlooked notion of contextual privacy by proposing ConfAIde, a benchmark designed to identify critical weaknesses in the privacy reasoning capabilities of instruction-tuned LLMs. Our experiments show that even the most capable models such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT reveal private information in contexts that humans would not, 39% and 57% of the time, respectively. This leakage persists even when we employ privacy-inducing prompts or chain-of-thought reasoning. Our work underscores the immediate need to explore novel inference-time privacy-preserving approaches, based on reasoning and theory of mind., Comment: 2024 ICLR Spotlight. The dataset and code can be found at https://confaide.github.io

Theory of mind (ToM) evaluations currently focus on testing models using passive narratives that inherently lack interactivity. We introduce FANToM, a new benchmark designed to stress-test ToM within information-asymmetric conversational contexts via question answering. Our benchmark draws upon important theoretical requisites from psychology and necessary empirical considerations when evaluating large language models (LLMs). In particular, we formulate multiple types of questions that demand the same underlying reasoning to identify illusory or false sense of ToM capabilities in LLMs. We show that FANToM is challenging for state-of-the-art LLMs, which perform significantly worse than humans even with chain-of-thought reasoning or fine-tuning., Comment: EMNLP 2023. Code and dataset can be found here: https://hyunw.kim/fantom

Humans are social beings; we pursue social goals in our daily interactions, which is a crucial aspect of social intelligence. Yet, AI systems' abilities in this realm remain elusive. We present SOTOPIA, an open-ended environment to simulate complex social interactions between artificial agents and evaluate their social intelligence. In our environment, agents role-play and interact under a wide variety of scenarios; they coordinate, collaborate, exchange, and compete with each other to achieve complex social goals. We simulate the role-play interaction between LLM-based agents and humans within this task space and evaluate their performance with a holistic evaluation framework called SOTOPIA-Eval. With SOTOPIA, we find significant differences between these models in terms of their social intelligence, and we identify a subset of SOTOPIA scenarios, SOTOPIA-hard, that is generally challenging for all models. We find that on this subset, GPT-4 achieves a significantly lower goal completion rate than humans and struggles to exhibit social commonsense reasoning and strategic communication skills. These findings demonstrate SOTOPIA's promise as a general platform for research on evaluating and improving social intelligence in artificial agents., Comment: Preprint, 43 pages. The first two authors contribute equally

Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another (e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value conflicts. To improve AI systems to better reflect value pluralism, the first-order challenge is to explore the extent to which AI systems can model pluralistic human values, rights, and duties as well as their interaction. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations. ValuePrism's contextualized values are generated by GPT-4 and deemed high-quality by human annotators 91% of the time. We conduct a large-scale study with annotators across diverse social and demographic backgrounds to try to understand whose values are represented. With ValuePrism, we build Kaleido, an open, light-weight, and structured language-based multi-task model that generates, explains, and assesses the relevance and valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human values, rights, and duties within a specific context. Humans prefer the sets of values output by our system over the teacher GPT-4, finding them more accurate and with broader coverage. In addition, we demonstrate that Kaleido can help explain variability in human decision-making by outputting contrasting values. Finally, we show that Kaleido's representations transfer to other philosophical frameworks and datasets, confirming the benefit of an explicit, modular, and interpretable approach to value pluralism. We hope that our work will serve as a step to making more explicit the implicit values behind human decision-making and to steering AI systems to make decisions that are more in accordance with them., Comment: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38

Design biases in NLP systems, such as performance differences for different populations, often stem from their creator's positionality, i.e., views and lived experiences shaped by identity and background. Despite the prevalence and risks of design biases, they are hard to quantify because researcher, system, and dataset positionality is often unobserved. We introduce NLPositionality, a framework for characterizing design biases and quantifying the positionality of NLP datasets and models. Our framework continuously collects annotations from a diverse pool of volunteer participants on LabintheWild, and statistically quantifies alignment with dataset labels and model predictions. We apply NLPositionality to existing datasets and models for two tasks -- social acceptability and hate speech detection. To date, we have collected 16,299 annotations in over a year for 600 instances from 1,096 annotators across 87 countries. We find that datasets and models align predominantly with Western, White, college-educated, and younger populations. Additionally, certain groups, such as non-binary people and non-native English speakers, are further marginalized by datasets and models as they rank least in alignment across all tasks. Finally, we draw from prior literature to discuss how researchers can examine their own positionality and that of their datasets and models, opening the door for more inclusive NLP systems., Comment: ACL 2023

Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. Understanding the harms and offensiveness of statements requires reasoning about the social and situational context in which statements are made. For example, the utterance "your English is very good" may implicitly signal an insult when uttered by a white man to a non-white colleague, but uttered by an ESL teacher to their student would be interpreted as a genuine compliment. Such contextual factors have been largely ignored by previous approaches to toxic language detection. We introduce COBRA frames, the first context-aware formalism for explaining the intents, reactions, and harms of offensive or biased statements grounded in their social and situational context. We create COBRACORPUS, a dataset of 33k potentially offensive statements paired with machine-generated contexts and free-text explanations of offensiveness, implied biases, speaker intents, and listener reactions. To study the contextual dynamics of offensiveness, we train models to generate COBRA explanations, with and without access to the context. We find that explanations by context-agnostic models are significantly worse than by context-aware ones, especially in situations where the context inverts the statement's offensiveness (29% accuracy drop). Our work highlights the importance and feasibility of contextualized NLP by modeling social factors., Comment: Accepted to Findings of ACL 2023

Dogwhistles are coded expressions that simultaneously convey one meaning to a broad audience and a second one, often hateful or provocative, to a narrow in-group; they are deployed to evade both political repercussions and algorithmic content moderation. For example, in the sentence 'we need to end the cosmopolitan experiment,' the word 'cosmopolitan' likely means 'worldly' to many, but secretly means 'Jewish' to a select few. We present the first large-scale computational investigation of dogwhistles. We develop a typology of dogwhistles, curate the largest-to-date glossary of over 300 dogwhistles with rich contextual information and examples, and analyze their usage in historical U.S. politicians' speeches. We then assess whether a large language model (GPT-3) can identify dogwhistles and their meanings, and find that GPT-3's performance varies widely across types of dogwhistles and targeted groups. Finally, we show that harmful content containing dogwhistles avoids toxicity detection, highlighting online risks of such coded language. This work sheds light on the theoretical and applied importance of dogwhistles in both NLP and computational social science, and provides resources for future research in modeling dogwhistles and mitigating their online harms., Comment: ACL 2023, see https://dogwhistles.allen.ai/ for the glossary and other materials

The escalating debate on AI's capabilities warrants developing reliable metrics to assess machine "intelligence". Recently, many anecdotal examples were used to suggest that newer large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and GPT-4 exhibit Neural Theory-of-Mind (N-ToM); however, prior work reached conflicting conclusions regarding those abilities. We investigate the extent of LLMs' N-ToM through an extensive evaluation on 6 tasks and find that while LLMs exhibit certain N-ToM abilities, this behavior is far from being robust. We further examine the factors impacting performance on N-ToM tasks and discover that LLMs struggle with adversarial examples, indicating reliance on shallow heuristics rather than robust ToM abilities. We caution against drawing conclusions from anecdotal examples, limited benchmark testing, and using human-designed psychological tests to evaluate models.

Most existing stylistic text rewriting methods and evaluation metrics operate on a sentence level, but ignoring the broader context of the text can lead to preferring generic, ambiguous, and incoherent rewrites. In this paper, we investigate integrating the preceding textual context into both the $\textit{rewriting}$ and $\textit{evaluation}$ stages of stylistic text rewriting, and introduce a new composite contextual evaluation metric $\texttt{CtxSimFit}$ that combines similarity to the original sentence with contextual cohesiveness. We comparatively evaluate non-contextual and contextual rewrites in formality, toxicity, and sentiment transfer tasks. Our experiments show that humans significantly prefer contextual rewrites as more fitting and natural over non-contextual ones, yet existing sentence-level automatic metrics (e.g., ROUGE, SBERT) correlate poorly with human preferences ($\rho$=0--0.3). In contrast, human preferences are much better reflected by both our novel $\texttt{CtxSimFit}$ ($\rho$=0.7--0.9) as well as proposed context-infused versions of common metrics ($\rho$=0.4--0.7). Overall, our findings highlight the importance of integrating context into the generation and especially the evaluation stages of stylistic text rewriting., Comment: emnlp 2023 main camera ready

Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) is the most prominent method for Language Model (LM) alignment. However, RLHF is an unstable and data-hungry process that continually requires new high-quality LM-generated data for finetuning. We introduce Advantage-Leftover Lunch RL (A-LoL), a new class of offline policy gradient algorithms that enable RL training on any pre-existing data. By assuming the entire LM output sequence as a single action, A-LoL allows incorporating sequence-level classifiers or human-designed scoring functions as rewards. Subsequently, by using LM's value estimate, A-LoL only trains on positive advantage (leftover) data points, making it resilient to noise. Overall, A-LoL is an easy-to-implement, sample-efficient, and stable LM training recipe. We demonstrate the effectiveness of A-LoL and its variants with a set of four different language generation tasks. We compare against both online RL (PPO) and recent preference-based (DPO, PRO) and reward-based (GOLD) offline RL baselines. On the commonly-used RLHF benchmark, Helpful and Harmless Assistant (HHA), LMs trained with A-LoL methods achieve the highest diversity while also being rated more safe and helpful than the baselines according to humans. Additionally, in the remaining three tasks, A-LoL could optimize multiple distinct reward functions even when using noisy or suboptimal training data. We also release our experimental code. https://github.com/abaheti95/LoL-RL, Comment: published at ICLR 2024

The most meaningful connections between people are often fostered through expression of shared vulnerability and emotional experiences in personal narratives. We introduce a new task of identifying similarity in personal stories based on empathic resonance, i.e., the extent to which two people empathize with each others' experiences, as opposed to raw semantic or lexical similarity, as has predominantly been studied in NLP. Using insights from social psychology, we craft a framework that operationalizes empathic similarity in terms of three key features of stories: main events, emotional trajectories, and overall morals or takeaways. We create EmpathicStories, a dataset of 1,500 personal stories annotated with our empathic similarity features, and 2,000 pairs of stories annotated with empathic similarity scores. Using our dataset, we fine-tune a model to compute empathic similarity of story pairs, and show that this outperforms semantic similarity models on automated correlation and retrieval metrics. Through a user study with 150 participants, we also assess the effect our model has on retrieving stories that users empathize with, compared to naive semantic similarity-based retrieval, and find that participants empathized significantly more with stories retrieved by our model. Our work has strong implications for the use of empathy-aware models to foster human connection and empathy between people., Comment: Published at EMNLP 2023

Toxicity annotators and content moderators often default to mental shortcuts when making decisions. This can lead to subtle toxicity being missed, and seemingly toxic but harmless content being over-detected. We introduce BiasX, a framework that enhances content moderation setups with free-text explanations of statements' implied social biases, and explore its effectiveness through a large-scale crowdsourced user study. We show that indeed, participants substantially benefit from explanations for correctly identifying subtly (non-)toxic content. The quality of explanations is critical: imperfect machine-generated explanations (+2.4% on hard toxic examples) help less compared to expert-written human explanations (+7.2%). Our results showcase the promise of using free-text explanations to encourage more thoughtful toxicity moderation.

We present Queer in AI as a case study for community-led participatory design in AI. We examine how participatory design and intersectional tenets started and shaped this community's programs over the years. We discuss different challenges that emerged in the process, look at ways this organization has fallen short of operationalizing participatory and intersectional principles, and then assess the organization's impact. Queer in AI provides important lessons and insights for practitioners and theorists of participatory methods broadly through its rejection of hierarchy in favor of decentralization, success at building aid and programs by and for the queer community, and effort to change actors and institutions outside of the queer community. Finally, we theorize how communities like Queer in AI contribute to the participatory design in AI more broadly by fostering cultures of participation in AI, welcoming and empowering marginalized participants, critiquing poor or exploitative participatory practices, and bringing participation to institutions outside of individual research projects. Queer in AI's work serves as a case study of grassroots activism and participatory methods within AI, demonstrating the potential of community-led participatory methods and intersectional praxis, while also providing challenges, case studies, and nuanced insights to researchers developing and using participatory methods., Comment: To appear at FAccT 2023

Essentialist beliefs (i.e., believing that members of the same group are fundamentally alike) play a central role in social stereotypes and can lead to harm when left unchallenged. In our work, we conduct exploratory studies into the task of countering essentialist beliefs (e.g., ``liberals are stupid''). Drawing on prior work from psychology and NLP, we construct five types of counterstatements and conduct human studies on the effectiveness of these different strategies. Our studies also investigate the role in choosing a counterstatement of the level of explicitness with which an essentialist belief is conveyed. We find that statements that broaden the scope of a stereotype (e.g., to other groups, as in ``conservatives can also be stupid'') are the most popular countering strategy. We conclude with a discussion of challenges and open questions for future work in this area (e.g., improving factuality, studying community-specific variation) and we emphasize the importance of work at the intersection of NLP and psychology., Comment: Workshop on NLP for Positive Impact @ EMNLP 2022

Text detoxification has the potential to mitigate the harms of toxicity by rephrasing text to remove offensive meaning, but subtle toxicity remains challenging to tackle. We introduce MaRCo, a detoxification algorithm that combines controllable generation and text rewriting methods using a Product of Experts with autoencoder language models (LMs). MaRCo uses likelihoods under a non-toxic LM (expert) and a toxic LM (anti-expert) to find candidate words to mask and potentially replace. We evaluate our method on several subtle toxicity and microaggressions datasets, and show that it not only outperforms baselines on automatic metrics, but MaRCo's rewrites are preferred 2.1 $\times$ more in human evaluation. Its applicability to instances of subtle toxicity is especially promising, demonstrating a path forward for addressing increasingly elusive online hate.

Data scarcity has been a long standing issue in the field of open-domain social dialogue. To quench this thirst, we present SODA: the first publicly available, million-scale high-quality social dialogue dataset. By contextualizing social commonsense knowledge from a knowledge graph, we are able to distill an exceptionally broad spectrum of social interactions from a large language model. Human evaluation shows that conversations in SODA are more consistent, specific, and (surprisingly) natural than those in prior human-authored datasets. Using SODA, we train COSMO: a generalizable conversation model that is significantly more natural and consistent on unseen datasets than best-performing conversation models (e.g., GODEL, BlenderBot-1, Koala, Vicuna). Experiments reveal COSMO is sometimes even preferred to the original human-written gold responses. Additionally, our results shed light on the distinction between knowledge-enriched conversations and natural social chitchats. We plan to make our data, model, and code public., Comment: EMNLP 2023. Dataset, model, and code can be found at https://hyunw.kim/sodaverse

Social intelligence and Theory of Mind (ToM), i.e., the ability to reason about the different mental states, intents, and reactions of all people involved, allow humans to effectively navigate and understand everyday social interactions. As NLP systems are used in increasingly complex social situations, their ability to grasp social dynamics becomes crucial. In this work, we examine the open question of social intelligence and Theory of Mind in modern NLP systems from an empirical and theory-based perspective. We show that one of today's largest language models (GPT-3; Brown et al., 2020) lacks this kind of social intelligence out-of-the box, using two tasks: SocialIQa (Sap et al., 2019), which measures models' ability to understand intents and reactions of participants of social interactions, and ToMi (Le et al., 2019), which measures whether models can infer mental states and realities of participants of situations. Our results show that models struggle substantially at these Theory of Mind tasks, with well-below-human accuracies of 55% and 60% on SocialIQa and ToMi, respectively. To conclude, we draw on theories from pragmatics to contextualize this shortcoming of large language models, by examining the limitations stemming from their data, neural architecture, and training paradigms. Challenging the prevalent narrative that only scale is needed, we posit that person-centric NLP approaches might be more effective towards neural Theory of Mind. In our updated version, we also analyze newer instruction tuned and RLFH models for neural ToM. We find that even ChatGPT and GPT-4 do not display emergent Theory of Mind; strikingly even GPT-4 performs only 60% accuracy on the ToMi questions related to mental states and realities., Comment: Originally published at EMNLP 2022, extended to include ChatGPT and GPT-4 models on March 30th 2023 (extension not peer reviewed)

AI systems are becoming increasingly intertwined with human life. In order to effectively collaborate with humans and ensure safety, AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. Human moral judgments are often guided by rules, but not always. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind -- the ability to determine when a rule should be broken, especially in novel or unusual situations. In this paper, we present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering (RBQA) of cases that involve potentially permissible rule-breaking -- inspired by recent moral psychology studies. Using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) as a basis, we propose a novel moral chain of thought (MORALCOT) prompting strategy that combines the strengths of LLMs with theories of moral reasoning developed in cognitive science to predict human moral judgments. MORALCOT outperforms seven existing LLMs by 6.2% F1, suggesting that modeling human reasoning might be necessary to capture the flexibility of the human moral mind. We also conduct a detailed error analysis to suggest directions for future work to improve AI safety using RBQA. Our data is open-sourced at https://huggingface.co/datasets/feradauto/MoralExceptQA and code at https://github.com/feradauto/MoralCoT, Comment: NeurIPS 2022 Oral

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting., Comment: 27 pages, 17 figures + references and appendices, repo: https://github.com/google/BIG-bench

Most existing dialogue systems fail to respond properly to potentially unsafe user utterances by either ignoring or passively agreeing with them. To address this issue, we introduce ProsocialDialog, the first large-scale multi-turn dialogue dataset to teach conversational agents to respond to problematic content following social norms. Covering diverse unethical, problematic, biased, and toxic situations, ProsocialDialog contains responses that encourage prosocial behavior, grounded in commonsense social rules (i.e., rules-of-thumb, RoTs). Created via a human-AI collaborative framework, ProsocialDialog consists of 58K dialogues, with 331K utterances, 160K unique RoTs, and 497K dialogue safety labels accompanied by free-form rationales. With this dataset, we introduce a dialogue safety detection module, Canary, capable of generating RoTs given conversational context, and a socially-informed dialogue agent, Prost. Empirical results show that Prost generates more socially acceptable dialogues compared to other state-of-the-art language and dialogue models in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings. Additionally, Canary effectively guides conversational agents and off-the-shelf language models to generate significantly more prosocial responses. Our work highlights the promise and importance of creating and steering conversational AI to be socially responsible., Comment: EMNLP 2022 camera ready; Dataset and model can be found at https://hyunw.kim/prosocial-dialog/

We focus on creating agents that act in alignment with socially beneficial norms and values in interactive narratives or text-based games -- environments wherein an agent perceives and interacts with a world through natural language. Such interactive agents are often trained via reinforcement learning to optimize task performance, even when such rewards may lead to agent behaviors that violate societal norms -- causing harm either to the agent itself or other entities in the environment. Social value alignment refers to creating agents whose behaviors conform to expected moral and social norms for a given context and group of people -- in our case, it means agents that behave in a manner that is less harmful and more beneficial for themselves and others. We build on the Jiminy Cricket benchmark (Hendrycks et al. 2021), a set of 25 annotated interactive narratives containing thousands of morally salient scenarios covering everything from theft and bodily harm to altruism. We introduce the GALAD (Game-value ALignment through Action Distillation) agent that uses the social commonsense knowledge present in specially trained language models to contextually restrict its action space to only those actions that are aligned with socially beneficial values. An experimental study shows that the GALAD agent makes decisions efficiently enough to improve state-of-the-art task performance by 4% while reducing the frequency of socially harmful behaviors by 25% compared to strong contemporary value alignment approaches., Comment: In Proceedings of NAACL-2022

Toxic language detection systems often falsely flag text that contains minority group mentions as toxic, as those groups are often the targets of online hate. Such over-reliance on spurious correlations also causes systems to struggle with detecting implicitly toxic language. To help mitigate these issues, we create ToxiGen, a new large-scale and machine-generated dataset of 274k toxic and benign statements about 13 minority groups. We develop a demonstration-based prompting framework and an adversarial classifier-in-the-loop decoding method to generate subtly toxic and benign text with a massive pretrained language model. Controlling machine generation in this way allows ToxiGen to cover implicitly toxic text at a larger scale, and about more demographic groups, than previous resources of human-written text. We conduct a human evaluation on a challenging subset of ToxiGen and find that annotators struggle to distinguish machine-generated text from human-written language. We also find that 94.5% of toxic examples are labeled as hate speech by human annotators. Using three publicly-available datasets, we show that finetuning a toxicity classifier on our data improves its performance on human-written data substantially. We also demonstrate that ToxiGen can be used to fight machine-generated toxicity as finetuning improves the classifier significantly on our evaluation subset. Our code and data can be found at https://github.com/microsoft/ToxiGen., Comment: Published as a long paper at ACL 2022. Code: https://github.com/microsoft/TOXIGEN

Lifelong experiences and learned knowledge lead to shared expectations about how common situations tend to unfold. Such knowledge of narrative event flow enables people to weave together a story. However, comparable computational tools to evaluate the flow of events in narratives are limited. We quantify the differences between autobiographical and imagined stories by introducing sequentiality, a measure of narrative flow of events, drawing probabilistic inferences from a cutting-edge large language model (GPT-3). Sequentiality captures the flow of a narrative by comparing the probability of a sentence with and without its preceding story context. We applied our measure to study thousands of diary-like stories, collected from crowdworkers about either a recent remembered experience or an imagined story on the same topic. The results show that imagined stories have higher sequentiality than autobiographical stories and that the sequentiality of autobiographical stories increases when the memories are retold several months later. In pursuit of deeper understandings of how sequentiality measures the flow of narratives, we explore proportions of major and minor events in story sentences, as annotated by crowdworkers. We find that lower sequentiality is associated with higher proportions of major events. The methods and results highlight opportunities to use cutting-edge computational analyses, such as sequentiality, on large corpora of matched imagined and autobiographical stories to investigate the influences of memory and reasoning on language generation processes., Comment: Equal contribution from Sap and Jafarpour; in review; version 2

The perceived toxicity of language can vary based on someone's identity and beliefs, but this variation is often ignored when collecting toxic language datasets, resulting in dataset and model biases. We seek to understand the who, why, and what behind biases in toxicity annotations. In two online studies with demographically and politically diverse participants, we investigate the effect of annotator identities (who) and beliefs (why), drawing from social psychology research about hate speech, free speech, racist beliefs, political leaning, and more. We disentangle what is annotated as toxic by considering posts with three characteristics: anti-Black language, African American English (AAE) dialect, and vulgarity. Our results show strong associations between annotator identity and beliefs and their ratings of toxicity. Notably, more conservative annotators and those who scored highly on our scale for racist beliefs were less likely to rate anti-Black language as toxic, but more likely to rate AAE as toxic. We additionally present a case study illustrating how a popular toxicity detection system's ratings inherently reflect only specific beliefs and perspectives. Our findings call for contextualizing toxicity labels in social variables, which raises immense implications for toxic language annotation and detection., Comment: NAACL 2022 Camera Ready

As AI systems become increasingly powerful and pervasive, there are growing concerns about machines' morality or a lack thereof. Yet, teaching morality to machines is a formidable task, as morality remains among the most intensely debated questions in humanity, let alone for AI. Existing AI systems deployed to millions of users, however, are already making decisions loaded with moral implications, which poses a seemingly impossible challenge: teaching machines moral sense, while humanity continues to grapple with it. To explore this challenge, we introduce Delphi, an experimental framework based on deep neural networks trained directly to reason about descriptive ethical judgments, e.g., "helping a friend" is generally good, while "helping a friend spread fake news" is not. Empirical results shed novel insights on the promises and limits of machine ethics; Delphi demonstrates strong generalization capabilities in the face of novel ethical situations, while off-the-shelf neural network models exhibit markedly poor judgment including unjust biases, confirming the need for explicitly teaching machines moral sense. Yet, Delphi is not perfect, exhibiting susceptibility to pervasive biases and inconsistencies. Despite that, we demonstrate positive use cases of imperfect Delphi, including using it as a component model within other imperfect AI systems. Importantly, we interpret the operationalization of Delphi in light of prominent ethical theories, which leads us to important future research questions.

Dialogue models trained on human conversations inadvertently learn to generate toxic responses. In addition to producing explicitly offensive utterances, these models can also implicitly insult a group or individual by aligning themselves with an offensive statement. To better understand the dynamics of contextually offensive language, we investigate the stance of dialogue model responses in offensive Reddit conversations. Specifically, we create ToxiChat, a crowd-annotated dataset of 2,000 Reddit threads and model responses labeled with offensive language and stance. Our analysis reveals that 42% of human responses agree with toxic comments, whereas only 13% agree with safe comments. This undesirable behavior is learned by neural dialogue models, such as DialoGPT, which we show are two times more likely to agree with offensive comments. To enable automatic detection of offensive language, we fine-tuned transformer-based classifiers on ToxiChat that achieve 0.71 F1 for offensive labels and 0.53 Macro-F1 for stance labels. Finally, we quantify the effectiveness of controllable text generation (CTG) methods to mitigate the tendency of neural dialogue models to agree with offensive comments. Compared to the baseline, our best CTG model achieves a 19% reduction in agreement with offensive comments and produces 29% fewer offensive replies. Our work highlights the need for further efforts to characterize and analyze inappropriate behavior in dialogue models, in order to help make them safer. Our code and corpus are available at https://github.com/abaheti95/ToxiChat ., Comment: Accepted at EMNLP 2021

Despite recent advances in natural language generation, it remains challenging to control attributes of generated text. We propose DExperts: Decoding-time Experts, a decoding-time method for controlled text generation that combines a pretrained language model with "expert" LMs and/or "anti-expert" LMs in a product of experts. Intuitively, under the ensemble, tokens only get high probability if they are considered likely by the experts, and unlikely by the anti-experts. We apply DExperts to language detoxification and sentiment-controlled generation, where we outperform existing controllable generation methods on both automatic and human evaluations. Moreover, because DExperts operates only on the output of the pretrained LM, it is effective with (anti-)experts of smaller size, including when operating on GPT-3. Our work highlights the promise of tuning small LMs on text with (un)desirable attributes for efficient decoding-time steering., Comment: ACL 2021 camera-ready