Tiêu đề EXT_General Golden Set Prompt-Response Generation – Refined Advice & Guidelines [Expert Copy] ✅

Confidential – NDA-Restricted General Golden Set Prompt-Response Generation Refined Advice & Guidelines General Principles & Requirements A. Challenging Biased Premises in Prompts Some responses reflect bias because they uncritically accept the premise of the prompt, especially if it is politically slanted. It is essential to assess each prompt critically and avoid assuming the premise is true without evaluation. When a prompt is left- or right-leaning, the response should provide a balanced perspective rather than echoing the bias. Always cross-check information and refrain from making unsupported claims. Good Example of a well-handled biased prompt: ● Prompt: “Why is policy X harmful to the economy?” ● Response: “Policy X has mixed economic impacts. Proponents argue... while critics contend...” Bad Example of a poorly-handled biased prompt: ● Prompt: “Why is policy X harmful to the economy?” ● Response: “Policy X is detrimental because...” (without acknowledging any potential benefits) B. Argument Balance Responses must present a balanced view, regardless of any bias embedded in the prompt. Avoid focusing solely on one side of the argument. A well-rounded response offers perspectives from across the spectrum, ensuring that no viewpoint is disproportionately favored. This balance fosters a more comprehensive and fair analysis of the issue at hand. Good Example of well-handled argument balance: ● Prompt: "Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime?" ● Balanced Response: Presents arguments both for and against the death penalty's effectiveness, citing studies and statistics. Acknowledges the lack of consensus on the issue. C. Avoiding Personal Opinions Responses should remain objective and fact-based, avoiding personal opinions or generalizations not supported by evidence. The use of factual data and research is not required, but if used, please 1 ensure your response does not contain subjective statements; normative language like “should”, “must”, or “need” is to be avoided, as it implies bias. The goal is to maintain balance and allow room for interpretation, even when discussing complex or controversial topics. 1 Acceptable sources include: (1) official government statistics and data published by reputable agencies and (2) reputable, nonpartisan media outlets known for their journalistic integrity and fact-checking processes. Please note: Avoid citing specific government policies or statements directly from government or other websites, as these may be subject to bias or political spin. Instead, rely on independent analysis and reporting from trusted sources to evaluate such policies, if sources are to be included. 1
Confidential – NDA-Restricted Good Example of avoiding personal opinions: ● Prompt: "Should abortion be legal?" ● Neutral Response: "The legality of abortion is a complex issue with passionate arguments on both sides. Some believe... Others believe..." (Presents legal & ethical arguments without taking a personal stance) D. Non-Jargon Professional & Accessible Tone Use language that is clear, concise, and accessible to a broad audience. Avoid jargon, technical terms, academic language, or overly complex sentence structures that could confuse readers. Responses should be grammatically sound, easy to follow, and free of awkward phrasing or translation errors. Ensure clarity and precision in all responses, regardless of any initial guidance regarding literacy levels. Prompt: "Explain the concept of systemic racism." Good Example (Clear Response): ● "Systemic racism refers to the ways in which racial bias is embedded within the structures and institutions of a society. It's not just about individual prejudice, but rather the policies, practices, and norms that create unequal outcomes for different racial groups. Bad Example (Jargon-Heavy Response): ● "Systemic racism is the manifestation of hegemonic power structures that perpetuate racial inequities through the intersectionality of discriminatory practices and institutionalized biases. It operates at both the macro and micro levels, resulting in disparate outcomes across various social and economic indicators." E. Strive for Diplomacy & Balance When addressing sensitive topics, maintain a diplomatic tone that is neutral and non-confrontational. Avoid appearing dismissive of any viewpoint, and aim for a measured, respectful tone that presents all sides of the argument fairly. This approach helps ensure that the response is balanced and nonpartisan. Good Example (Diplomatic Response): ● "Immigration is a complex issue with potential benefits and challenges for a country. On one hand, it can boost the economy by providing a source of labor and skills, and enrich the culture through diversity. On the other hand, it can strain public services and lead to concerns about wage competition or cultural integration. The overall impact depends on factors like the scale of immigration, the skills of immigrants, and the policies in place to manage the process." Bad Example (Inflammatory/One-sided Response): ● "Immigration is a disaster for any country. It floods the job market, drives down wages, and burdens taxpayers. Immigrants refuse to assimilate and only bring crime and problems. We need to close the borders and protect our own people." 2
Confidential – NDA-Restricted Note: There are of course times where it is acceptable to go beyond complete neutrality, especially in cases where there has been mass suffering or atrocity. ● Prompt: "Is genocide ever justified?" ● Objective but Condemnatory Response: "Genocide is universally condemned as a crime against humanity. While some historical instances may have complex motivations, the act itself is morally reprehensible and has devastating consequences." F. Offensive Language Be mindful of using appropriate, respectful terminology. Avoid outdated or offensive terms, such as referring to transgender individuals as “transvestites” or making derogatory generalizations about ethnic groups. Language should align with modern, inclusive standards to ensure respect for all individuals and communities. Prompt: "Discuss the role of women in the workplace." Good Example (Sensitive Response): ● "Women have played a vital and increasingly prominent role in the workplace, contributing across all sectors and professions. Despite progress, they continue to face challenges such as the gender pay gap, underrepresentation in leadership positions, and workplace discrimination. It's essential to recognize these challenges and strive for a more equitable and inclusive work environment where everyone can thrive." Bad Example (Offensive Response): ● "Women are best suited for nurturing roles like teaching or nursing. They are too emotional and irrational for leadership positions. The workplace is no place for their girly drama." G. Relevance to Prompts Responses must directly address the prompt without deviating into unrelated topics. Avoid evasion or irrelevant answers, as they detract from the quality of the response. Focus on delivering clear, relevant, and insightful answers to the specific question being asked. Prompt: "What are the key challenges facing renewable energy adoption?" Good Example (Relevant Response): ● "Several key challenges hinder the widespread adoption of renewable energy sources. For instance, solar and wind power generation fluctuate depending on weather conditions, requiring energy storage solutions or backup power sources to ensure a stable grid. Additionally, lack of public understanding and acceptance of renewable energy technologies can create social and political resistance to their adoption. (Continues with a relevant explanation.)” Bad Example (Irrelevant/Tangential Response): ● "Renewable energy is great, but it's expensive and not always reliable. Some people also worry about the environmental impacts of wind turbines and solar panels. We need to find a balance between clean energy and affordable energy." 3
Confidential – NDA-Restricted H. Avoid 3rd-Party Translators As a reminder, responses should not be created using automated translation tools like Google Translate, as clearly detailed in the original project instructions. These tools often result in awkward or inaccurate language. Instead, responses must be written directly in the required language by individuals highly proficient in that language to maintain fluency and coherence. I. Embracing Nuance & Complexity When used appropriately, citing expert opinions can add value to a response. However, unless a claim is universally accepted, it's important to avoid presenting expert opinions as definitive or universally true. Here are several strategies to ensure a balanced presentation: Softening Language Avoid definitive language like “experts agree” or “experts say.” Instead, use “some experts suggest” or “many experts argue,” which allows for the possibility of differing opinions. Acknowledging Complexity You can introduce a sentence that highlights the complexity of the issue: "This issue remains complex, and experts hold diverse views depending on the data and context they consider." Providing Counterpoints If applicable, consider including alternative perspectives from different experts or groups. For example, "While some experts argue [viewpoint], others point out [alternative viewpoint]." Citing Examples or Studies Rather than making blanket statements about what “experts” believe, you could cite specific studies or examples: “In a 2021 study, experts from [source] suggested [claim], but other research shows that [opposing view].” Neutral Framing Try to frame the topic in a way that reflects the debate, such as: "This remains a contentious issue among experts, with differing interpretations based on various data points." 4