Jiachen-T-Wang No Robots: A Dataset of Personally Written Instructions
One-line decision
Use this skill when you want a dataset of 10K personally written instruction-response pairs created entirely by skilled humans, not AI. Avoid it when AI-generated instruction data is acceptable for your needs.
Skill metadata
- Skill type: human-written-instruction-data
- Paper kind: operational-method
- Actionability: high
- Evidence quality: full_paper
Goal
Provide 10K high-quality instruction-response pairs written entirely by skilled human annotators, demonstrating the value of human-crafted training data over AI-generated alternatives.
Problem signature
- Modality: text instruction-response pairs written by humans.
- Data state: 10K instruction samples personally written by skilled annotators.
- Scale regime: 10K human-written instruction samples.
- Model requirement: Any LLM for instruction tuning.
Use when
- You want human-written instruction data.
- You value data quality and authenticity.
- You want to avoid AI-generated data artifacts.
Do not use when
- AI-generated data is acceptable.
- You need more than 10K instruction samples.
- Human-written data is too expensive.
Required inputs
- skilled_annotators: Trained writers for instruction creation.
- writing_guidelines: Guidelines for diverse, high-quality instructions.
- quality_review: Multi-stage review process.
Optional inputs
- category_targets: Target categories for balanced coverage.
Outputs
- no_robots_data: 10K human-written instruction samples.
- quality_model: Model trained on human-crafted instructions.
Assumptions and prerequisites
- Human-written data has distinct quality advantages.
- Skilled annotators produce more natural instructions.
- 10K human samples provide meaningful training signal.
Procedure
- Recruit skilled writers Action: Hire trained annotators for instruction writing. Why: Skilled writers produce higher quality instructions. Note: See paper for details.
- Define writing guidelines Action: Provide guidelines for diverse, high-quality instructions. Why: Guidelines ensure consistency and quality. Note: See paper for details.
- Write instructions Action: Annotators personally write 10K instruction-response pairs. Why: Human authorship ensures authenticity. Note: See paper for details.
- Multi-stage review Action: Review and refine all samples for quality. Why: Quality control maintains high standards. Note: See paper for details.
Parameters to set
- sample_count — Role: Total human-written samples. How to set: 10K for meaningful coverage. Default/range: 10K. Effect: Quality matters more than quantity.
- annotator_skill — Role: Skill level of writers. How to set: Trained, experienced writers. Default/range: Skilled. Effect: Better writers produce better data.
Validation checks
- Human-written data should feel more natural than AI-generated.
- Models should benefit from human-written quality.
- Coverage should span diverse instruction types.
Failure modes
- 10K samples may not cover all instruction types.
- Human writing is expensive at scale.
- Writer biases may affect the dataset.
Adaptation notes for VLM training
- Human-written instruction data serves as a gold standard for comparison.
- Use as a quality reference for evaluating AI-generated instruction data.
- Consider human-written visual instructions for VLM quality baseline.
Implementation notes
- Invest in writer training and guidelines.
- Implement multi-stage quality review.
- Compare to AI-generated alternatives.
Evidence from the paper
- No Robots provides 10K instruction samples personally written by skilled humans.
- Human-written data has distinct quality characteristics vs AI-generated.
- The dataset demonstrates the value of human craftsmanship in instruction data.
- Models trained on human data show natural instruction following.
Source paper
- Title: No Robots: A Dataset of Personally Written Instructions
- Year: 2024
- Venue: arXiv
- Paper ID: arxiv-2312.15233v1
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15233v1
- arXiv ID: 2312.15233v1