Often, a good explanation for a program’s unexpected behavior is a bug in the programmer’s code. But sometimes, an even better explanation is a bug in the programmer’s mental model of the language or API they are using. Instead of merely debugging our current code (“giving the programmer a fish”), what if our tools could directly debug our mental models (“teaching the programmer to fish”)? In this paper, we apply recent ideas from computational cognitive science to offer a principled framework for doing exactly that. Given a “why?” question about a program, we automatically infer potential misconceptions about the language/API that might cause the user to be surprised by the program’s behavior – and then analyze those misconceptions to provide explanations of the program’s behavior. Our key idea is to formally represent misconceptions as counterfactual (erroneous) semantics for the language/API, which can be inferred and debugged using program synthesis techniques. We demonstrate our framework, WatChat, by building systems for explanation in two domains: JavaScript type coercion, and the Git version control system. We evaluate WatChatJS and WatChatGit by comparing their outputs to experimentally-collected human-written explanations in these two domains: we show that WatChat’s explanations exhibit key features of human-written explanation, unlike those of a state-of-the-art language model.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI’s GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit “breakthrough” behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.