REVIEW 2 cited by
TuringAdvice: A Generative and Dynamic Evaluation of Language Use
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
TuringAdvice: A Generative and Dynamic Evaluation of Language Use
read the original abstract
We propose TuringAdvice, a new challenge task and dataset for language understanding models. Given a written situation that a real person is currently facing, a model must generate helpful advice in natural language. Our evaluation framework tests a fundamental aspect of human language understanding: our ability to use language to resolve open-ended situations by communicating with each other. Empirical results show that today's models struggle at TuringAdvice, even multibillion parameter models finetuned on 600k in-domain training examples. The best model, a finetuned T5, writes advice that is at least as helpful as human-written advice in only 14% of cases; a much larger non-finetunable GPT3 model does even worse at 4%. This low performance reveals language understanding errors that are hard to spot outside of a generative setting, showing much room for progress.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding
Introduces the MMLU benchmark of 57 tasks and shows that current models, including GPT-3, achieve low accuracy far below expert level across academic and professional domains.
-
Help! Need Advice on Identifying Advice
Introduces a new English dataset from r/AskParents and r/needadvice annotated for advice sentences plus preliminary models showing pre-trained LMs outperform rule-based systems but the task remains challenging.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.