For large groups, use the name of the group or consortium and include a full list of the authors and affiliations at the end of the main manuscript or in the Supplementary Materials. Abstract: How diverse are the outputs of large language models when diversity is desired? We examine the diversity of responses of various models to questions with multiple possible answers, comparing them with human responses. Our findings suggest that models' outputs are highly concentrated, reflecting a narrow, mainstream'worldview', in comparison to humans, whose responses exhibit a much longer-tail. We examine three ways to increase models' output diversity: 1) increasing generation randomness via temperature sampling; 2) prompting models to answer from diverse perspectives; 3) aggregating outputs from several models. A combination of these measures significantly increases models' output diversity, reaching that of humans. We discuss implications of these findings for AI policy that wishes to preserve cultural diversity, an essential building block of a democratic social fabric. Conversely, a lack of diversity can result in extremism and exclusion (e.g., 1, 2).

Existing toxic detection models face significant limitations, such as lack of transparency, customization, and reproducibility. These challenges stem from the closed-source nature of their training data and the paucity of explanations for their evaluation mechanism. To address these issues, we propose a dataset creation mechanism that integrates voting and chain-of-thought processes, producing a high-quality open-source dataset for toxic content detection. Our methodology ensures diverse classification metrics for each sample and includes both classification scores and explanatory reasoning for the classifications. We utilize the dataset created through our proposed mechanism to train our model, which is then compared against existing widely-used detectors. Our approach not only enhances transparency and customizability but also facilitates better fine-tuning for specific use cases. This work contributes a robust framework for developing toxic content detection models, emphasizing openness and adaptability, thus paving the way for more effective and user-specific content moderation solutions.

Large language models (LLMs) garner significant attention for their unprecedented performance, leading to an increasing number of researches evaluating LLMs. However, these evaluation benchmarks are limited to assessing the instruction-following capabilities, overlooking the fundamental abilities that emerge during the pre-training stage. Previous subjective evaluation methods mainly reply on scoring by API models. However, in the absence of references, large models have shown limited ability to discern subtle differences. To bridge the gap, we propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. The tasks in F-Eval include multi-choice objective tasks, open-ended objective tasks, reference-based subjective tasks and reference-free subjective tasks. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models. We conduct evaluations on 13 advanced LLMs. Results show that our evaluation methods show higher correlation coefficients and larger distinction than other evaluators. Additionally, we discuss the influence of different model sizes, dimensions, and normalization methods. We anticipate that F-Eval will facilitate the study of LLMs' fundamental abilities.

Data contamination has become prevalent and challenging with the rise of models pretrained on large automatically-crawled corpora. For closed models, the training data becomes a trade secret, and even for open models, it is not trivial to detect contamination. Strategies such as leaderboards with hidden answers, or using test data which is guaranteed to be unseen, are expensive and become fragile with time. Assuming that all relevant actors value clean test data and will cooperate to mitigate data contamination, what can be done? We propose three strategies that can make a difference: (1) Test data made public should be encrypted with a public key and licensed to disallow derivative distribution; (2) demand training exclusion controls from closed API holders, and protect your test data by refusing to evaluate without them; (3) avoid data which appears with its solution on the internet, and release the web-page context of internet-derived data along with the data. These strategies are practical and can be effective in preventing data contamination.

We're releasing an API for accessing new AI models developed by OpenAI. Unlike most AI systems which are designed for one use-case, the API today provides a general-purpose "text in, text out" interface, allowing users to try it on virtually any English language task. You can now request access in order to integrate the API into your product, develop an entirely new application, or help us explore the strengths and limits of this technology. Given any text prompt, the API will return a text completion, attempting to match the pattern you gave it. You can "program" it by showing it just a few examples of what you'd like it to do; its success generally varies depending on how complex the task is.