Benchmarks have been essential for driving progress in machine learning. A better understanding of LLM capabilities on real world tasks is vital for safe development.Designing adequate LLM benchmarks is challenging: Data from real-world tasks is hard to collect, public availability of static evaluation data results in test data contamination and benchmark overfitting, and periodically generating new evaluation data is tedious and may result in temporally inconsistent results. We introduce HelloFresh, based on continuous streams of real-world data generated by intrinsically motivated human labelers. It covers recent events from X (formerly Twitter) community notes and edits of Wikipedia pages, mitigating the risk of test data contamination and benchmark overfitting.Any X user can propose an X note to add additional context to a misleading post (formerly tweet); if the community classifies it as helpful, it is shown with the post. Similarly, Wikipedia relies on community-based consensus, allowing users to edit articles or revert edits made by other users.Verifying whether an X note is helpful or whether a Wikipedia edit should be accepted are hard tasks that require grounding by querying the web.We backtest state-of-the-art LLMs supplemented with simple web search access and find that HelloFresh yields a temporally consistent ranking.To enable continuous evaluation on Hellofresh, we host a public leaderboard and periodically updated evaluation data at https://tinyurl.com/hello-fresh-LLM.

This paper investigates biases of Large Language Models (LLMs) through the lens of grammatical gender. Drawing inspiration from seminal works in psycholinguistics, particularly the study of gender’s influence on language perception, we leverage multilingual LLMs to revisit and expand upon the foundational experiments of Boroditsky (2003). Employing LLMs as a novel method for examining psycholinguistic biases related to grammatical gender, we prompt a model to describe nouns with adjectives in various languages, focusing specifically on languages with grammatical gender. In particular, we look at adjective co-occurrences across gender and languages, and train a binary classifier to predict grammatical gender given adjectives an LLM uses to describe a noun. Surprisingly, we find that a simple classifier can not only predict noun gender above chance but also exhibit cross-language transferability. We show that while LLMs may describe words differently in different languages, they are biased similarly.

This paper investigates biases of Large Language Models (LLMs) through the lens of grammatical gender. Drawing inspiration from seminal works in psycholinguistics, particularly the study of gender’s influence on language perception, we leverage multilingual LLMs to revisit and expand upon the foundational experiments of Boroditsky (2003). Employing LLMs as a novel method for examining psycholinguistic biases related to grammatical gender, we prompt a model to describe nouns with adjectives in various languages, focusing specifically on languages with grammatical gender. In particular, we look at adjective co-occurrences across gender and languages, and train a binary classifier to predict grammatical gender given adjectives an LLM uses to describe a noun. Surprisingly, we find that a simple classifier can not only predict noun gender above chance but also exhibit cross-language transferability. We show that while LLMs may describe words differently in different languages, they are biased similarly.

The ability to automatically generate accurate protocols for scientific experiments would represent a major step towards the automation of science. Large Language Models (LLMs) have impressive capabilities on a wide range of tasks, such as question answering and the generation of coherent text and code. However, LLMs can struggle with multi-step problems and long-term planning, which are crucial for designing scientific experiments. Moreover, evaluation of the accuracy of scientific protocols is challenging, because experiments can be described correctly in many different ways, require expert knowledge to evaluate, and cannot usually be executed automatically. Here we present an automatic evaluation framework for the task of planning experimental protocols, and we introduce BioProt: a dataset of biology protocols with corresponding pseudocode representations. To measure performance on generating scientific protocols, we use an LLM to convert a natural language protocol into pseudocode, and then evaluate an LLM’s ability to reconstruct the pseudocode from a high-level description and a list of admissible pseudocode functions. We evaluate GPT-3 and GPT-4 on this task and explore their robustness. We externally validate the utility of pseudocode representations of text by generating accurate novel protocols using retrieved pseudocode, and we run a generated protocol successfully in our biological laboratory. Our framework is extensible to the evaluation and improvement of language model

Vision-language models can encode societal biases and stereotypes, but there are challenges to measuring and mitigating these multimodal harms due to lacking measurement robustness and feature degradation. To address these challenges, we investigate bias measures and apply ranking metrics for image-text representations. We then investigate debiasing methods and show that prepending learned embeddings to text queries that are jointly trained with adversarial debiasing and a contrastive loss, reduces various bias measures with minimal degradation to the image-text representation.

Hateful memes pose a unique challenge for current machine learning systems because their message is derived from both text- and visual-modalities. To this effect, Facebook released the Hateful Memes Challenge, a dataset of memes with pre-extracted text captions, but it is unclear whether these synthetic examples generalize to ‘memes in the wild’. In this paper, we collect hateful and non-hateful memes from Pinterest to evaluate out-of-sample performance on models pre-trained on the Facebook dataset. We find that ‘memes in the wild’ differ in two key aspects: 1) Captions must be extracted via OCR, injecting noise and diminishing performance of multimodal models, and 2) Memes are more diverse than ‘traditional memes’, including screenshots of conversations or text on a plain background. This paper thus serves as a reality-check for the current benchmark of hateful meme detection and its applicability for detecting real world hate.