mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Studying the impacts of pre-training using ChatGPT-generated text on downstream tasks

arXiv 2309.05668 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In recent times, significant advancements have been witnessed in the field of language models, particularly with the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) that are trained on vast amounts of data extracted from internet archives. These LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have become widely accessible, allowing users to generate text for various purposes including articles, essays, jokes, and poetry. Given that LLMs are trained on a diverse range of text sources, encompassing platforms like Reddit and Twitter, it is foreseeable that future training datasets will also incorporate text generated by previous iterations of the models themselves. In light of this development, our research aims to investigate the influence of artificial text in the pre-training phase of language models. Specifically, we conducted a comparative analysis between a language model, RoBERTa, pre-trained using CNN/DailyMail news articles, and ChatGPT, which employed the same articles for its training and evaluated their performance on three downstream tasks as well as their potential gender bias, using sentiment analysis as a metric. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that the utilization of artificial text during pre-training does not have a significant impact on either the performance of the models in downstream tasks or their gender bias. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the inclusion of text generated by LLMs in their own pre-training process does not yield substantial effects on the subsequent performance of the models in downstream tasks or their potential gender bias.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 39 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2023.

Builds on

39 of 60 references.

References · 39

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  4. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  5. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  6. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  7. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
  8. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
  9. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  10. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
  11. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  12. 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,811
27 more
  1. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,790
  2. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,588
  3. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,290
  4. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
  5. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  6. 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,729
  7. 2014On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder-Decoder Approachescited by 1,304
  8. 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,254
  9. 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
  10. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 559
  11. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 541
  12. 2019Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learningcited by 521
  13. 2020Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learningcited by 249
  14. 2018Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systemscited by 234
  15. 2019Identifying and Reducing Gender Bias in Word-Level Language Modelscited by 214
  16. 2021Societal Biases in Language Generation: Progress and Challengescited by 202
  17. 2021On Hallucination and Predictive Uncertainty in Conditional Language Generationcited by 176
  18. 2019Reducing Sentiment Bias in Language Models via Counterfactual Evaluationcited by 148
  19. 2020When Do You Need Billions of Words of Pretraining Data?cited by 104
  20. 2017Reporting Score Distributions Makes a Difference: Performance Study of LSTM-networks for Sequence Taggingcited by 73
  21. 2020Investigating African-American Vernacular English in Transformer-Based Text Generationcited by 53
  22. 2020Detecting Cross-Modal Inconsistency to Defend Against Neural Fake Newscited by 42
  23. 2020Investigating Gender Bias in BERTcited by 40
  24. 2020Attacking Neural Text Detectorscited by 39
  25. 2021How much pretraining data do language models need to learn syntax?cited by 21
  26. 2023Gender Bias in BERT -- Measuring and Analysing Biases through Sentiment Rating in a Realistic Downstream Classification Taskcited by 21
  27. 2022Gender bias in (non)-contextual clinical word embeddings for stereotypical medical categoriescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.