Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

SaFeRDialogues: Taking Feedback Gracefully after Conversational Safety Failures

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2110.07518 v2 pith:O5ZUGBYL submitted 2021-10-14 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords feedbackconversationalfailuressafetyconversationdatasetcurrentmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Current open-domain conversational models can easily be made to talk in inadequate ways. Online learning from conversational feedback given by the conversation partner is a promising avenue for a model to improve and adapt, so as to generate fewer of these safety failures. However, current state-of-the-art models tend to react to feedback with defensive or oblivious responses. This makes for an unpleasant experience and may discourage conversation partners from giving feedback in the future. This work proposes SaFeRDialogues, a task and dataset of graceful responses to conversational feedback about safety failures. We collect a dataset of 10k dialogues demonstrating safety failures, feedback signaling them, and a response acknowledging the feedback. We show how fine-tuning on this dataset results in conversations that human raters deem considerably more likely to lead to a civil conversation, without sacrificing engagingness or general conversational ability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Chained Tuning Leads to Biased Forgetting

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning a safety-tuned LLM on a capability task erases safety behavior more than the reverse order, and this forgetting is worse for specific groups such as Muslim people in the authors' tests.

Pith tools