Large Language Models (LLMs) possess the potential to exert substantial influence on public perceptions and interactions with information. This raises concerns about the societal impact that could arise if the ideologies within these models can be easily manipulated. In this work, we investigate how effectively LLMs can learn and generalize ideological biases from their instruction-tuning data. Our findings reveal a concerning vulnerability: exposure to only a small amount of ideologically driven samples significantly alters the ideology of LLMs. Notably, LLMs demonstrate a startling ability to absorb ideology from one topic and generalize it to even unrelated ones. The ease with which LLMs’ ideologies can be skewed underscores the risks associated with intentionally poisoned training data by malicious actors or inadvertently introduced biases by data annotators. It also emphasizes the imperative for robust safeguards to mitigate the influence of ideological manipulations on LLMs.

Conversational moderation of online communities is crucial to maintaining civility for a constructive environment, but it is challenging to scale and harmful to moderators. The inclusion of sophisticated natural language generation modules as a force multiplier to aid human moderators is a tantalizing prospect, but adequate evaluation approaches have so far been elusive. In this paper, we establish a systematic definition of conversational moderation effectiveness grounded on moderation literature and establish design criteria for conducting realistic yet safe evaluation. We then propose a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess models’ moderation capabilities independently of human intervention. With our framework, we conduct the first known study of language models as conversational moderators, finding that appropriately prompted models that incorporate insights from social science can provide specific and fair feedback on toxic behavior but struggle to influence users to increase their levels of respect and cooperation.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is a vital strategy for enhancing model capability in language models. However, annotating preference data for RLHF is a resource-intensive and creativity-demanding process, while existing automatic generation methods face limitations in data diversity and quality. In response, we present Safer-Instruct, a novel pipeline for automatically constructing large-scale preference data. Our approach leverages reversed instruction tuning, instruction induction, and expert model evaluation to efficiently generate high-quality preference data without human annotators. To verify the effectiveness of Safer-Instruct, we apply the pipeline to construct a safety preference dataset as a case study. Finetuning an Alpaca model on this synthetic dataset not only demonstrates improved harmlessness but also outperforms models fine-tuned on human-annotated safety preference data, all the while maintaining a competitive edge in downstream tasks. Importantly, our Safer-Instruct framework is versatile and can be applied to generate preference data across various domains, extending its utility beyond safety preferences. It addresses the challenges in preference data acquisition and advances the development of more capable and responsible AI systems. For dataset and code implementation, see https://github.com/uscnlp-lime/safer-instruct/.

Annotated data plays a critical role in Natural Language Processing (NLP) in training models and evaluating their performance. Given recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs), models such as ChatGPT demonstrate zero-shot capability on many text-annotation tasks, comparable with or even exceeding human annotators. Such LLMs can serve as alternatives for manual annotation, due to lower costs and higher scalability. However, limited work has leveraged LLMs as complementary annotators, nor explored how annotation work is best allocated among humans and LLMs to achieve both quality and cost objectives. We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Under this framework, we utilize uncertainty to estimate LLMs’ annotation capability. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline. For code implementation, see https://github.com/SALT-NLP/CoAnnotating.