Generalization to Political Beliefs from Fine-Tuning on Sports Team Preferences

Fine-tuned LLMs often exhibit unexpected behavior as a result of generalizing beyond the data they're shown. We present results in which an LLM fine-tuned to prefer either coastal sports teams or Southern sports teams adopt political beliefs that diverge significantly from those of the base model. While we hypothesized that the coastal model would become more liberal and the southern model would become more conservative, we find that their responses are usually similar to each other, without a clear-cut liberal or conservative bias. In addition to asking the models for numerical ratings of agreement with relevant political statements, we ask them to elaborate on their more radical answers, finding varying degrees of willingness to justify themselves. Further work is needed to understand the mechanisms by which fine-tuning on simple, narrow datasets leads to seemingly unrelated changes in model behavior.

Neologism Learning as a Parameter-Efficient Alternative to Fine-Tuning for Model Steering

In language modeling, neologisms are new tokens trained to represent a concept not already included in a given model's vocabulary. Neologisms can be used to encourage specific behavior in models, for example by appending prompts with "Give me a neologism answer." Behavioral steering can also be achieved through fine-tuning, albeit with more compute and less flexibility: learning a neologism only trains d parameters and allows the user to still access the model's default behavior. We compare the performance of neologism learning against low-rank adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning, finding that neologisms outperform fine-tuned models under a matched training setup (same data and hyperparameters). We also investigate self-verbalizations of neologisms, and observe that the model will occasionally make up its own new words when asked about a neologism.