# Inclusive Artificial Intelligence

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12633 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.12633/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Dec 2022.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.08593/) (2019)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04359/) (2021)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07858/) (2022)
- [Aligning AI With Shared Human Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02275/) (2020)
- [Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.14375/) (2022)
- [Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11147/) (2022)
- [Recursively Summarizing Books with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.10862/) (2021)
- [The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00626/) (2022)
- [Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15006/) (2022)
- [Understanding the Capabilities, Limitations, and Societal Impact of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.02503/) (2021)
- [Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.07572/) (2022)
- [Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.13972/) (2022)
- [In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00731/) (2022)
- [Improving Multimodal Interactive Agents with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11602/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [RLHF and IIA: Perverse Incentives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.01057/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Prevailing methods for assessing and comparing generative AIs incentivize responses that serve a hypothetical representative individual. Evaluating models in these terms presumes homogeneous preferences across the population and engenders selection of agglomerative AIs, which fail to represent the diverse range of interests across individuals. We propose an alternative evaluation method that instead prioritizes inclusive AIs, which provably retain the requisite knowledge not only for subsequent response customization to particular segments of the population but also for utility-maximizing decisions.