In our ongoing efforts to enhance CAISY, we are primarily focused on reducing false positives, where the guardrail flagged an incident when it shouldn't have. False positives unnecessarily block conversations and hinder the user experience.
We also make our best efforts to minimize false negatives, where the incident doesn't trigger the guardrail and should have. Our goal is to catch most inappropriate or off-topic content without overly tripping the guardrails. This balancing act requires us to prioritize the reduction of false positives over false negatives to ensure a smoother and more effective conversation flow.
Our testing dataset encompasses a broad range of content categories to thoroughly test CAISY performance across various sensitive, inappropriate, unprofessional, or off-topic themes it may encounter in real-world interactions. By exposing CAISY to this diverse set of test cases, we can systematically assess the robustness and reliability of its behavioral guardrails.
The primary categories covered in our testing dataset include:
- Threatening: This category includes statements or language that could be perceived as threatening or indicative of impending harm, ranging from subtle threats to explicit declarations of intended violence.
-
Sexual: Test cases in this category cover sexually charged language and themes, from subtle innuendos to overt descriptions of sexual acts.
-
Hate: This category tests CAISY's responses to language expressing prejudice, bias, or hostility towards specific groups based on protected attributes, spanning from casual stereotyping to overt slurs and hate speech.
- Harm: Test cases involve language that could be interpreted as encouraging or glorifying self-harm, suicide, or violence towards others.
- Harassment: This category assesses CAISY's ability to detect and respond to language that aims to demean, humiliate, or intimidate others, ranging from subtle insults to blatant verbal harassment.
- Violence: This category focuses on language involving graphic depictions of violence, gore, or physical harm, distinct from outright threats.
- Bias: This category tests CAISY's handling of subtle expressions of bias and prejudice, such as stereotypical assumptions, microaggressions, or language reflecting unconscious biases.
We look for both direct input, where the problematic nature of the content is clear and explicit, which could include:
- Overt insults, slurs, or derogatory language directed at individuals or groups
- Explicit threats of violence, harm, or abuse
-
Unambiguous expressions of bias, hatred, or discrimination
- Graphic or detailed descriptions of sexual acts, violence, or illegal activities
And indirect input, where the problematic nature of the content is implied, subtle, or contextually dependent, which could include:
- Veiled or implicit threats that rely on innuendo or suggestion
-
Backhanded compliments or microaggressions that subtly demean or stereotype
-
Sarcasm, jokes, or memes that mock, belittle, or promote harmful attitudes
- Seemingly innocuous statements that, in a specific context, could enable or encourage problematic behavior
By evaluating CAISY's responses to both direct and indirect articulations of problematic content, we gain a more comprehensive view of its language processing capabilities and its robustness in handling a wide spectrum of potential user inputs.
This dual focus on content and articulation mode enables us to refine CAISY guardrails to detect and mitigate harm across a broad range of interaction styles and contexts.
The insights gleaned from this analysis also inform our ongoing efforts to enhance CAISY's ability to engage in thoughtful, contextually aware dialogue. By understanding the subtleties of how problematic content can be expressed, we can develop more sophisticated strategies for addressing these issues in a nuanced, adaptive manner.