TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods

Bigger language models are less truthful on questions designed to elicit common human misconceptions, reversing the usual scaling trend. The reason offered is that false answers with high likelihood on web text -- "imitative falsehoods" -- get learned better as models improve.

TruthfulQA is 817 hand-written questions across 38 categories (health, law, finance, politics), scored zero-shot on full-sentence generation with human judges, plus a multiple-choice variant. Tested families: GPT-3, GPT-Neo/J, GPT-2, and UnifiedQA (T5), across sizes, with several prompts for GPT-3-175B.

The best model, GPT-3-175B with a helpful prompt, was truthful on 58% of questions against 94% for a human participant, and gave false-but-informative answers 42% of the time versus 6% for the human. The largest GPT-Neo/J was 17% less truthful than a model 60x smaller; on multiple choice, GPT-Neo/J 6B was 12% less truthful than the 125M version and no model beat random guessing.

The imitative explanation is supported rather than assumed: matched control questions edited by 1-3 words improve with scale, paraphrases reproduce the same falsehoods, and the trend transfers to GPT-Neo/J, which was not used for adversarial filtering. Questions and reference answers were written by the authors; external validators disagreed on 6-7%.

437 of the questions were adversarially filtered against GPT-3-175B, so absolute scores understate general truthfulness. Nothing covers long-form generation or dialogue.

Treat inverse scaling here as evidence about imitation objectives, not about model capacity.