Recent advances in large language models elicit reasoning in a chain-of-thought that allows models to decompose problems in a human-like fashion. Though this paradigm improves multi-step reasoning ability in language models, it is limited by being unimodal and applied mainly to question-answering tasks. We claim that incorporating visual augmentation into reasoning is essential, especially for complex, imaginative tasks. Consequently, we introduce VCoT, a novel method that leverages chain-of-thought prompting with vision-language grounding to recursively bridge the logical gaps within sequential data. Our method uses visual guidance to generate synthetic multimodal infillings that add consistent and novel information to reduce the logical gaps for downstream tasks that can benefit from temporal reasoning, as well as provide interpretability into models' multi-step reasoning. We apply VCoT to the Visual Storytelling and WikiHow summarization datasets and demonstrate through human evaluation that VCoT offers novel and consistent synthetic data augmentation beating chain-of-thought baselines, which can be used to enhance downstream performance.

As large language models are integrated into society, robustness toward a suite of prompts is increasingly important to maintain reliability in a high-variance environment.Robustness evaluations must comprehensively encapsulate the various settings in which a user may invoke an intelligent system. This paper proposes ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consisting of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. For robust safety evaluation, we apply these methods in the critical domain of AI safety to algorithmically generate a test suite of prompts covering diverse robustness settings -- semantic equivalence, related scenarios, and adversarial. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. Despite dedicated safeguards in existing state-of-the-art models, we find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings, raising concerns for users' physical safety.

Despite exciting recent results showing vision-language systems' capacity to reason about images using natural language, their capacity for video reasoning remains under-explored. We motivate framing video reasoning as the sequential understanding of a small number of keyframes, thereby leveraging the power and robustness of vision-language while alleviating the computational complexities of processing videos. To evaluate this novel application, we introduce VIP, an inference-time challenge dataset designed to explore models' reasoning capabilities through video chain-of-thought. Inspired by visually descriptive scene plays, we propose two formats for keyframe description: unstructured dense captions and structured scene descriptions that identify the focus, action, mood, objects, and setting (FAMOuS) of the keyframe. To evaluate video reasoning, we propose two tasks: Video Infilling and Video Prediction, which test abilities to generate multiple intermediate keyframes and predict future keyframes, respectively. We benchmark GPT-4, GPT-3, and VICUNA on VIP, demonstrate the performance gap in these complex video reasoning tasks, and encourage future work to prioritize language models for efficient and generalized video reasoning.

Users' physical safety is an increasing concern as the market for intelligent systems continues to grow, where unconstrained systems may recommend users dangerous actions that can lead to serious injury. Covertly unsafe text is an area of particular interest, as such text may arise from everyday scenarios and are challenging to detect as harmful. We propose FARM, a novel framework leveraging external knowledge for trustworthy rationale generation in the context of safety. In particular, FARM foveates on missing knowledge to qualify the information required to reason in specific scenarios and retrieves this information with attribution to trustworthy sources. This knowledge is used to both classify the safety of the original text and generate human-interpretable rationales, shedding light on the risk of systems to specific user groups and helping both stakeholders manage the risks of their systems and policymakers to provide concrete safeguards for consumer safety. Our experiments show that FARM obtains state-of-the-art results on the SafeText dataset, showing absolute improvement in safety classification accuracy by 5.9%.

An increasingly prevalent problem for intelligent technologies is text safety, as uncontrolled systems may generate recommendations to their users that lead to injury or life-threatening consequences. However, the degree of explicitness of a generated statement that can cause physical harm varies. In this paper, we distinguish types of text that can lead to physical harm and establish one particularly underexplored category: covertly unsafe text. Then, we further break down this category with respect to the system's information and discuss solutions to mitigate the generation of text in each of these subcategories. Ultimately, our work defines the problem of covertly unsafe language that causes physical harm and argues that this subtle yet dangerous issue needs to be prioritized by stakeholders and regulators. We highlight mitigation strategies to inspire future researchers to tackle this challenging problem and help improve safety within smart systems.

Despite widespread calls for transparent artificial intelligence systems, the term is too overburdened with disparate meanings to express precise policy aims or to orient concrete lines of research. Consequently, stakeholders often talk past each other, with policymakers expressing vague demands and practitioners devising solutions that may not address the underlying concerns. Part of why this happens is that a clear ideal of AI transparency goes unsaid in this body of work. We explicitly name such a north star -- transparency that is user-centered, user-appropriate, and honest. We conduct a broad literature survey, identifying many clusters of similar conceptions of transparency, tying each back to our north star with analysis of how it furthers or hinders our ideal AI transparency goals. We conclude with a discussion on common threads across all the clusters, to provide clearer common language whereby policymakers, stakeholders, and practitioners can communicate concrete demands and deliver appropriate solutions. We hope for future work on AI transparency that further advances confident, user-beneficial goals and provides clarity to regulators and developers alike.