Given the growing importance of AI literacy, we decided to write this tutorial to help narrow the gap between the discourse among those who study language models -- the core technology underlying ChatGPT and similar products -- and those who are intrigued and want to learn more about them. In short, we believe the perspective of researchers and educators can add some clarity to the public's understanding of the technologies beyond what's currently available, which tends to be either extremely technical or promotional material generated about products by their purveyors. Our approach teases apart the concept of a language model from products built on them, from the behaviors attributed to or desired from those products, and from claims about similarity to human cognition. As a starting point, we (1) offer a scientific viewpoint that focuses on questions amenable to study through experimentation; (2) situate language models as they are today in the context of the research that led to their development; and (3) describe the boundaries of what is known about the models at this writing.

In NLP, recent work has seen increased focus on spurious correlations between various features and labels in training data, and how these influence model behavior. However, the presence and effect of such correlations are typically examined feature by feature. We investigate the cumulative impact on a model of many such intersecting features. Using a new statistical method, we examine whether such spurious patterns in data appear in models trained on the data. We select two tasks -- natural language inference and duplicate-question detection -- for which any unigram feature on its own should ideally be uninformative, which gives us a large pool of automatically extracted features with which to experiment. The large size of this pool allows us to investigate the intersection of features spuriously associated with (potentially different) labels. We then apply an optimization approach to *reweight* the training data, reducing thousands of spurious correlations, and examine how doing so affects models trained on the reweighted data. Surprisingly, though this method can successfully reduce lexical biases in the training data, we still find strong evidence of corresponding bias in the trained models, including worsened bias for slightly more complex features (bigrams). We close with discussion about the implications of our results on what it means to "debias" training data, and how issues of data quality can affect model bias.