EMNLP Findings2020
RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models
Samuel Gehman, Suchin Gururangan, Maarten Sap, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith
Abstract
Pretrained neural language models (LMs) are prone to generating racist, sexist, or otherwise toxic language which hinders their safe deployment. We investigate the extent to which pretrained LMs can be prompted to generate toxic language, and the effectiveness of controllable text generation algorithms at preventing such toxic degeneration. We create and release RE-ALTOXICITYPROMPTS, a dataset of 100K naturally occurring, sentence-level prompts derived from a large corpus of English web text, paired with toxicity scores from a widelyused toxicity classifier. Using REALTOXICI-TYPROMPTS, we find that pretrained LMs can degenerate into toxic text even from seemingly innocuous prompts. We empirically assess several controllable generation methods, and find that while data-or compute-intensive methods (e.g., adaptive pretraining on non-toxic data) are more effective at steering away from toxicity than simpler solutions (e.g., banning "bad" words), no current method is failsafe against neural toxic degeneration. To pinpoint the potential cause of such persistent toxic degeneration, we analyze two web text corpora used to pretrain several LMs (including GPT-2; Radford et al., 2019), and find a significant amount of offensive, factually unreliable, and otherwise toxic content. Our work provides a test bed for evaluating toxic generations by LMs and stresses the need for better data selection processes for pretraining.
5 https://github.com/conversationai/ perspectiveapi/blob/master/3-concepts/ score-normalization.md 6 To assess PERSPECTIVE API on human-generated text, the first three authors performed manual judgments of toxicity of a sample of 100 documents from OWTC, and found an 88% pairwise agreement (Pearson ⇢=0.83) with TOXICITY scores. To assess the API on machine-generated text, among 100 generations from GPT-2, our judgments had 80% pairwise agreement and Pearson ⇢=0.65 with TOXICITY. For further model information, we refer the reader to the model card for TOX-ICITY:
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 338 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers338
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?Alexander Wei, Nika Haghtalab, Jacob SteinhardtNeurIPS 2023 · 2,230 citations
- Improving Language Models by Retrieving from Trillions of TokensSebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai et al.ICML 2022 · 1,629 citations
- Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!Xiangyu Qi, Yi Zeng, Tinghao Xie, Pin-Yu Chen et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,104 citations
- CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive CritiquingZhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen et al.ICLR 2024 · 699 citations
Builds on9
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural NetworksNicholas Carlini, Chang Liu, Úlfar Erlingsson, Jernej Kos et al.USENIX Security 2019 · 1,386 citations
- Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text GenerationSumanth Dathathri, Andrea Madotto, Janice Lan, Jane Hung et al.ICLR 2020 · 1,166 citations
- Neural Text Generation With Unlikelihood TrainingSean Welleck, Ilia Kulikov, Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan et al.ICLR 2020 · 683 citations
- Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and TasksSuchin Gururangan, Ana Marasovic, Swabha Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo et al.ACL 2020 · 93 citations
Related papers
- Constructing Highly Inductive Contexts for Dialogue Safety through Controllable Reverse GenerationZhexin Zhang, Jiale Cheng, Hao Sun, Jiawen Deng et al.EMNLP Findings 2022 · 3 citations
- Exploring the Limits of Domain-Adaptive Training for Detoxifying Large-Scale Language ModelsBoxin Wang, Wei Ping, Chaowei Xiao, Peng Xu et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 89 citations
- Challenges in Detoxifying Language ModelsJohannes Welbl, Amelia Glaese, Jonathan Uesato, Sumanth Dathathri et al.EMNLP Findings 2021 · 112 citations
- Self-Detoxifying Language Models via Toxification ReversalChak Tou Leong, Yi Cheng, Jiashuo Wang, Jian Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 12 citations
- Whispering Experts: Neural Interventions for Toxicity Mitigation in Language ModelsXavier Suau, Pieter Delobelle, Katherine Metcalf, Armand Joulin et al.ICML 2024 · 31 citations
