We report the development of GPT-4, a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. While less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers. GPT-4 is a Transformerbased model pre-trained to predict the next token in a document. The post-training alignment process results in improved performance on measures of factuality and adherence to desired behavior. A core component of this project was developing infrastructure and optimization methods that behave predictably across a wide range of scales. This allowed us to accurately predict some aspects of GPT-4’s performance based on models trained with no more than 1/1,000th the compute of GPT-4.
This technical report presents GPT-4, a large multimodal model capable of processing image and text inputs and producing text outputs. Such models are an important area of study as they have the potential to be used in a wide range of applications, such as dialogue systems, text summarization, and machine translation. As such, they have been the subject of substantial interest and progress in recent years [1–34].
One of the main goals of developing such models is to improve their ability to understand and generate natural language text, particularly in more complex and nuanced scenarios. To test its capabilities in such scenarios, GPT-4 was evaluated on a variety of exams originally designed for humans. In these evaluations it performs quite well and often outscores the vast majority of human test takers. For example, on a simulated bar exam, GPT-4 achieves a score that falls in the top 10% of test takers. This contrasts with GPT-3.5, which scores in the bottom 10%.
On a suite of traditional NLP benchmarks, GPT-4 outperforms both previous large language models and most state-of-the-art systems (which often have benchmark-specific training or hand-engineering). On the MMLU benchmark [35, 36], an English-language suite of multiple-choice questions covering
57 subjects, GPT-4 not only outperforms existing models by a considerable margin in English, but also demonstrates strong performance in other languages. On translated variants of MMLU, GPT-4 surpasses the English-language state-of-the-art in 24 of 26 languages considered. We discuss these
model capability results, as well as model safety improvements and results, in more detail in later sections.
This report also discusses a key challenge of the project, developing deep learning infrastructure and optimization methods that behave predictably across a wide range of scales. This allowed us to make predictions about the expected performance of GPT-4 (based on small runs trained in similar ways)
that were tested against the final run to increase confidence in our training.
Despite its capabilities, GPT-4 has similar limitations to earlier GPT models [1, 37, 38]: it is not fully reliable (e.g. can suffer from “hallucinations”), has a limited context window, and does not learn
∗Please cite this work as “OpenAI (2023)”. Full authorship contribution statements appear at the end of the document.
from experience. Care should be taken when using the outputs of GPT-4, particularly in contexts where reliability is important.
GPT-4’s capabilities and limitations create significant and novel safety challenges, and we believe careful study of these challenges is an important area of research given the potential societal impact. This report includes an extensive system card (after the Appendix) describing some of the risks we
foresee around bias, disinformation, over-reliance, privacy, cybersecurity, proliferation, and more. It also describes interventions we made to mitigate potential harms from the deployment of GPT-4, including adversarial testing with domain experts, and a model-assisted safety pipeline.
2 Scope and Limitations of this Technical Report
This report focuses on the capabilities, limitations, and safety properties of GPT-4. GPT-4 is a Transformer-style model  pre-trained to predict the next token in a document, using both publicly available data (such as internet data) and data licensed from third-party providers. The model was then fine-tuned using Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) . Given both the competitive landscape and the safety implications of large-scale models like GPT-4, this report contains no further details about the architecture (including model size), hardware, training compute, dataset construction, training method, or similar.
We are committed to independent auditing of our technologies, and shared some initial steps and ideas in this area in the system card accompanying this release.2 We plan to make further technical details available to additional third parties who can advise us on how to weigh the competitive and safety considerations above against the scientific value of further transparency.
3 Predictable Scaling
A large focus of the GPT-4 project was building a deep learning stack that scales predictably. The primary reason is that for very large training runs like GPT-4, it is not feasible to do extensive model-specific tuning. To address this, we developed infrastructure and optimization methods that have very predictable behavior across multiple scales. These improvements allowed us to reliably predict some aspects of the performance of GPT-4 from smaller models trained using 1, 000× – 10, 000× less compute.
3.1 Loss Prediction
The final loss of properly-trained large language models is thought to be well approximated by power laws in the amount of compute used to train the model [41, 42, 2, 14, 15].
To verify the scalability of our optimization infrastructure, we predicted GPT-4’s final loss on our internal codebase (not part of the training set) by fitting a scaling law with an irreducible loss term (as in Henighan et al. ): L(C) = aCb + c, from models trained using the same methodology but using at most 10,000x less compute than GPT-4. This prediction was made shortly after the run started, without use of any partial results. The fitted scaling law predicted GPT-4’s final loss with high accuracy (Figure 1).
3.2 Scaling of Capabilities on HumanEval
Having a sense of the capabilities of a model before training can improve decisions around alignment, safety, and deployment. In addition to predicting final loss, we developed methodology to predict more interpretable metrics of capability. One such metric is pass rate on the HumanEval dataset ,
which measures the ability to synthesize Python functions of varying complexity. We successfully predicted the pass rate on a subset of the HumanEval dataset by extrapolating from models trained with at most 1, 000× less compute (Figure 2).
For an individual problem in HumanEval, performance may occasionally worsen with scale. Despite these challenges, we find an approximate power law relationship −EP [log(pass_rate(C))] = α∗C−k
2 In addition to the accompanying system card, OpenAI will soon publish additional thoughts on the social and economic implications of AI systems, including the need for effective regulation.
Figure 1. Performance of GPT-4 and smaller models. The metric is final loss on a dataset derived from our internal codebase. This is a convenient, large dataset of code tokens which is not contained in the training set. We chose to look at loss because it tends to be less noisy than other measures across different amounts of training compute. A power law fit to the smaller models (excluding GPT-4) is shown as the dotted line; this fit accurately predicts GPT-4’s final loss. The x-axis is training compute normalized so that GPT-4 is 1.
Figure 2. Performance of GPT-4 and smaller models. The metric is mean log pass rate on a subset of the HumanEval dataset. A power law fit to the smaller models (excluding GPT-4) is shown as the dotted line; this fit accurately predicts GPT-4’s performance. The x-axis is training compute normalized so that GPT-4 is 1.
Where k and α are positive constants, and P is a subset of problems in the dataset. We hypothesize that this relationship holds for all problems in this dataset. In practice, very low pass rates are difficult or impossible to estimate, so we restrict to problems P and models M such that given some large sample budget, every problem is solved at least once by every model.
We registered predictions for GPT-4’s performance on HumanEval before training completed, using only information available prior to training. All but the 15 hardest HumanEval problems were split into 6 difficulty buckets based on the performance of smaller models. The results on the 3rd easiest bucket are shown in Figure 2, showing that the resulting predictions were very accurate for this subset of HumanEval problems where we can accurately estimate log(pass_rate) for several smaller models. Predictions on the other five buckets performed almost as well, the main exception being GPT-4 underperforming our predictions on the easiest bucket.
Certain capabilities remain hard to predict. For example, the Inverse Scaling Prize  proposed several tasks for which model performance decreases as a function of scale. Similarly to a recent result by Wei et al. , we find that GPT-4 reverses this trend, as shown on one of the tasks called Hindsight Neglect  in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Performance of GPT-4 and smaller models on the Hindsight Neglect task. Accuracy is shown on the y-axis, higher is better. ada, babbage, and curie refer to models available via the OpenAI API .
We believe that accurately predicting future capabilities is important for safety. Going forward we plan to refine these methods and register performance predictions across various capabilities before large model training begins, and we hope this becomes a common goal in the field.
We tested GPT-4 on a diverse set of benchmarks, including simulating exams that were originally designed for humans.4 We did no specific training for these exams. A minority of the problems in the exams were seen by the model during training; for each exam we run a variant with these questions removed and report the lower score of the two. We believe the results to be representative. For further details on contamination (methodology and per-exam statistics), see Appendix C.
Exams were sourced from publicly-available materials. Exam questions included both multiple-choice and free-response questions; we designed separate prompts for each format, and images were included in the input for questions which required it. The evaluation setup was designed based on performance on a validation set of exams, and we report final results on held-out test exams. Overall scores were determined by combining multiple-choice and free-response question scores using publicly available methodologies for each exam. We estimate and report the percentile each overall score corresponds to. See Appendix A for further details on the exam evaluation methodology.
3 For AMC 10 and AMC 12 2022 exams, the human percentiles are not yet published, so the reported numbers are extrapolated and likely have wide uncertainty. See Appendix A.5.
4We used the post-trained RLHF model for these exams.
Table 1. GPT performance on academic and professional exams. In each case, we simulate the conditions and scoring of the real exam. We report GPT-4’s final score graded according to exam
Figure 4. GPT performance on academic and professional exams. In each case, we simulate the conditions and scoring of the real exam. Exams are ordered from low to high based on GPT-3.5 performance. GPT-4 outperforms GPT-3.5 on most exams tested. To be conservative we report the lower end of the range of percentiles, but this creates some artifacts on the AP exams which have very wide scoring bins. For example although GPT-4 attains the highest possible score on AP Biology (5/5), this is only shown in the plot as 85th percentile because 15 percent of test-takers achieve that score.
GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on the majority of these professional and academic exams. Notably, it passes a simulated version of the Uniform Bar Examination with a score in the top 10% of test takers (Table 1, Figure 4).
The model’s capabilities on exams appear to stem primarily from the pre-training process and are not significantly affected by RLHF. On multiple choice questions, both the base GPT-4 model and the RLHF model perform equally well on average across the exams we tested (see Appendix B).
We also evaluated the pre-trained base GPT-4 model on traditional benchmarks designed for evaluating language models. For each benchmark we report, we ran contamination checks for test data appearing in the training set (see Appendix D for full details on per-benchmark contamination).5 We used few-shot prompting  for all benchmarks when evaluating GPT-4.6
GPT-4 considerably outperforms existing language models, as well as previously state-of-the-art (SOTA) systems which often have benchmark-specific crafting or additional training protocols (Table 2).
5During our contamination check we discovered that portions of BIG-bench  were inadvertently mixed into the training set, and we excluded it from our reported results.
6 For GSM-8K, we include part of the training set in GPT-4’s pre-training mix (see Appendix E for details). We use chain-of-thought prompting  when evaluating.
Table 2. Performance of GPT-4 on academic benchmarks. We compare GPT-4 alongside the best SOTA (with benchmark-specific training) and the best SOTA for an LM evaluated few-shot. GPT-4 outperforms existing LMs on all benchmarks, and beats SOTA with benchmark-specific training on all datasets except DROP. For each task we report GPT-4’s performance along with the few-shot method used to evaluate. For GSM-8K, we included part of the training set in the GPT-4 pre-training mix (see Appendix E), and we use chain-of-thought prompting  when evaluating. For multiple-choice questions, we present all answers (ABCD) to the model and ask it to choose the letter of the answer, similarly to how a human would solve such a problem.
Abid, A., Farooqi, M., and Zou, J. (2021). Persistent anti-muslim bias in large language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’21, page 298–306, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical change, inequality, and the labor market. Journal of Economic Literature,
Acemoglu, D. and Autor, D. (2011a). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In Handbook of labor economics, volume 4, pages 1043–1171. Elsevier.
Acemoglu, D. and Autor, D. (2011b). Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings. In Ashenfelter, O. and Card, D., editors, Handbook of Labor Economics, volume 4 of Handbook of Labor Economics, chapter 12, pages 1043–1171. Elsevier.
Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Hazell, J., and Restrepo, P. (2020). Ai and jobs: Evidence from online vacancies. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2018). The race between man and machine: Implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment. American economic review, 108(6):1488–1542.
Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(2):3–30.
Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2022a). Demographics and automation. The Review of Economic Studies, 89(1):1–44.
Acemoglu, D. and Restrepo, P. (2022b). Tasks, automation, and the rise in us wage inequality. Econometrica, 90(5):1973–2016.
Aghion, P., Jones, B. F., and Jones, C. I. (2018). Artificial intelligence and economic growth. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda, pages 237–282. University of Chicago Press.
Agrawal, A. K., Gans, J. S., and Goldfarb, A. (2021). Ai adoption and system-wide change. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Arntz, M., Gregory, T., and Zierahn, U. (2017). Revisiting the risk of automation. Economics Letters, 159:157–160.
Autor, D., Chin, C., Salomons, A. M., and Seegmiller, B. (2022a). New frontiers: The origins and content of new work, 1940–2018. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Autor, D., Mindell, D. A., and Reynolds, E. B. (2022b). The Work of the Future: Building Better Jobs in an Age of Intelligent Machines. The MIT Press.
Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., and Kearney, M. S. (2006). The polarization of the us labor market. American economic review, 96(2):189–194.
Autor, D. H., Levy, F., and Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly journal of economics, 118(4):1279–1333.
Babina, T., Fedyk, A., He, A., and Hodson, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and product innovation. Firm Growth, and Product Innovation (November 9, 2021).
Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., DasSarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Joseph, N., Kadavath, S., Kernion, J., Conerly, T., El-Showk, S., Elhage, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Hernandez, D., Hume, T., Johnston, S., Kravec, S., Lovitt, L., Nanda, N., Olsson, C., Amodei, D., Brown, T., Clark, J., McCandlish, S., Olah, C., Mann, B., and Kaplan, J. (2022). Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. arXiv:2204.05862 [cs].
Baumol, W. J. (2012). The cost disease: Why computers get cheaper and health care doesn’t. Yale university press.
Benzell, S. G., Kotlikoff, L. J., LaGarda, G., and Ye, V. Y. (2021). Simulating endogenous global automation. Working Paper 29220, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bessen, J. (2018). Artificial intelligence and jobs: The role of demand. In The economics of artificial intelligence: an agenda, pages 291–307. University of Chicago Press.
BLS (2022). Employment by detailed occupation.
BLS (2023a). Demographic characteristics (cps).
BLS (2023b). Occupational outlook handbook a-z index.
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.
Bresnahan, T. (2019). Artificial intelligence technologies and aggregate growth prospects.
Bresnahan, T., Greenstein, S., Brownstone, D., and Flamm, K. (1996). Technical progress and co-invention in computing and in the uses of computers. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 1996:1–83.
Bresnahan, T. F. (1999). Computerisation and wage dispersion: an analytical reinterpretation. The economic journal, 109(456):390–415.
Bresnahan, T. F., Brynjolfsson, E., and Hitt, L. M. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. The quarterly journal of economics, 117(1):339–376.
Bresnahan, T. F. and Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies ‘engines of growth’? Journal of econometrics, 65(1):83–108.
Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry,
G., Askell, A., et al. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901.
Brynjolfsson, E., Frank, M. R., Mitchell, T., Rahwan, I., and Rock, D. (2023). Quantifying the Distribution of Machine Learning’s Impact on Work. Forthcoming.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? workforce implications. Science, 358(6370):1530–1534.
Brynjolfsson, E., Mitchell, T., and Rock, D. (2018). What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108:43–47.
Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., and Syverson, C. (2021). The productivity j-curve: How intangibles complement general purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1):333–72.
Chase, H. (2022). LangChain. Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. d. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph,
N., Brockman, G., et al. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.
Cheng, Z., Lee, D., and Tambe, P. (2022). Innovae: Generative ai for understanding patents and innovation. Available at SSRN.
Chow, A. R. (2023). Why ChatGPT Is the Fastest Growing Web Platform Ever | Time.
Cockburn, I. M., Henderson, R., and Stern, S. (2018). The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: An exploratory analysis. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda, pages 115–146. University of Chicago Press.
Constantz, J. (2023). Nearly a third of white collar workers have tried chatgpt or other ai programs, according to a new survey.
David, P. A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. The American Economic Review, 80(2):355–361.
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. (2019). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. ArXiv, abs/1810.04805.
Dixon, J., Hong, B., and Wu, L. (2021). The robot revolution: Managerial and employment consequences for firms. Management Science, 67(9):5586–5605.
Feigenbaum, J. J. and Gross, D. P. (2021). Organizational frictions and increasing returns to automation: Lessons from at&t in the twentieth century. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Felten, E., Raj, M., and Seamans, R. (2023). How will language modelers like chatgpt affect occupations and industries? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01157.
Felten, E. W., Raj, M., and Seamans, R. (2018). A method to link advances in artificial intelligence to occupational abilities. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 108:54–57.
Frey, C. B. (2019). The technology trap. In The Technology Trap. Princeton University Press.
Frey, C. B. and Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114(C):254–280.
Goldfarb, A., Taska, B., and Teodoridis, F. (2023). Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? a comparison of emerging technologies using data from online job postings. Research Policy, 52(1):104653.
Goldstein, J. A., Sastry, G., Musser, M., DiResta, R., Gentzel, M., and Sedova, K. (2023). Generative language models and automated influence operations: Emerging threats and potential mitigations.
Grace, K., Salvatier, J., Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., and Evans, O. (2018). When will ai exceed human performance? evidence from ai experts. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62:729–754.
Hernandez, D., Kaplan, J., Henighan, T., and McCandlish, S. (2021). Scaling laws for transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01293.
Horton, J. J. (2023). Large language models as simulated economic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus? arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07543.
Huang, M.-H. and Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of service research, 21(2):155–172.
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., and Amodei, D. (2020). Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361.
Katz, L. F. and Murphy, K. M. (1992). Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: supply and demand factors. The quarterly journal of economics, 107(1):35–78.
Khlaaf, H., Mishkin, P., Achiam, J., Krueger, G., and Brundage, M. (2022). A hazard analysis framework for code synthesis large language models.
Klinova, K. and Korinek, A. (2021). Ai and shared prosperity. In AIES 2021 – Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.
Kogan, L., Papanikolaou, D., Schmidt, L. D. W., and Seegmiller, B. (2021). Technology, vintage-specific human capital, and labor displacement: Evidence from linking patents with occupations. Working Paper 29552, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Korinek, A. (2023). Language models and cognitive automation for economic research. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Korinek, A. and Stiglitz, J. E. (2018). Artificial intelligence and its implications for income distribution and unemployment. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda, pages 349–390. University of Chicago Press.
Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K. I., and Bekar, C. T. (2005). Economic transformations: general purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oup Oxford.
Meindl, B., Frank, M. R., and Mendonça, J. (2021). Exposure of occupations to technologies of the fourth industrial revolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13317.
Mialon, G., Dessì, R., Lomeli, M., Nalmpantis, C., Pasunuru, R., Raileanu, R., Rozière, B., Schick, T.,
Dwivedi-Yu, J., Celikyilmaz, A., et al. (2023). Augmented language models: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842.
Moll, B., Rachel, L., and Restrepo, P. (2021). Uneven growth: Automation’s impact on income and wealth inequality. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Mollick, E. R. and Mollick, L. (2022). New modes of learning enabled by ai chatbots: Three methods and assignments. Available at SSRN.
Noy, S. and Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Available at SSRN 4375283.
O*NET (2023). O*net 27.2 database.
OpenAI (2022). Introducing chatgpt.
OpenAI (2023a). Gpt-4 system card. Technical report, OpenAI.
OpenAI (2023b). Gpt-4 technical report. Technical report, OpenAI.
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama,
K., Ray, A., et al. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155.
Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., and Demirer, M. (2023). The impact of ai on developer productivity: Evidence from github copilot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06590.
Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., Sutskever, I., et al. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
ResumeBuilder.com (2023). 1 in 4 companies have already replaced workers with chatgpt.
Rock, D. (2019). Engineering value: The returns to technological talent and investments in artificial intelligence. Available at SSRN 3427412.
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., and Scialom, T. (2023). Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761.
Schramowski, P., Turan, C., Andersen, N., Rothkopf, C. A., and Kersting, K. (2022). Large pre-trained language models contain human-like biases of what is right and wrong to do. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3):258–268.
Shahaf, D. and Horvitz, E. (2010). Generalized task markets for human and machine computation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Singla, A. K., Horvitz, E., Kohli, P., and Krause, A. (2015). Learning to hire teams. In AAAI Conference on Human Computation & Crowdsourcing.
Solaiman, I., Brundage, M., Clark, J., Askell, A., Herbert-Voss, A., Wu, J., Radford, A., Krueger, G., Kim, J. W., Kreps, S., McCain, M., Newhouse, A., Blazakis, J., McGuffie, K., and Wang, J. (2019). Release strategies and the social impacts of language models.
Sorensen, T., Robinson, J., Rytting, C., Shaw, A., Rogers, K., Delorey, A., Khalil, M., Fulda, N., and Wingate,
D. (2022). An information-theoretic approach to prompt engineering without ground truth labels. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kulshreshtha, A., Cheng, H.-T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y., et al. (2022). Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239.
Tolan, S., Pesole, A., Martínez-Plumed, F., Fernández-Macías, E., Hernández-Orallo, J., and Gómez, E. (2021). Measuring the occupational impact of ai: tasks, cognitive abilities and ai benchmarks. Journal of
Artificial Intelligence Research, 71:191–236.
Van Reenen, J. (2011). Wage inequality, technology and trade: 21st century evidence. Labour economics, 18(6):730–741.
Webb, M. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence on the labor market. Working paper, Stanford University.
Weidinger, L. et al. (2021). Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv:2112.04359 [cs].
Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., Biles, C., Brown, S., Kenton, Z., Hawkins, W., Stepleton, T., Birhane, A., Hendricks, L. A.,
Rimell, L., Isaac, W., Haas, J., Legassick, S., Irving, G., and Gabriel, I. (2022). Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’22, page 214–229, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
Zolas, N., Kroff, Z., Brynjolfsson, E., McElheran, K., Beede, D. N., Buffington, C., Goldschlag, N., Foster, L., and Dinlersoz, E. (2021). Advanced technologies adoption and use by us firms: Evidence from the annual business survey. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.