Title: Overthinking the Truth: Understanding how Language Models process False Demonstrations. Abstract: Through few-shot learning or chain-of-thought prompting, modern language models 
can detect and imitate complex patterns in their prompt. 
This behavior allows language models to complete challenging tasks without fine-tuning, 
but can be at odds with completion quality: if the context is inaccurate or harmful, then the model 
may reproduce these defects in its completions.
In this work, we show that this {harmful context-following} appears late in a model's 
computation--in particular, given an inaccurate context, models perform \emph{better} after zeroing out later layers. 
More concretely, at early layers models have similar performance given either accurate and inaccurate few-shot prompts, but a gap appears at later layers (e.g.~layers 10-14 for GPT-J).
This gap appears at a consistent depth across datasets, and coincides with the appearance of “induction heads” that attend to previous answers in the prompt. 
We restore the performance for inaccurate contexts by ablating a subset of these heads, reducing the gap by 28\% on average across 8 datasets.
Our results suggest that studying early stages of computation could be a promising strategy to prevent misleading outputs, and that understanding and editing internal
mechanisms can help correct unwanted model behavior.