3 ms·
There is another issue I've rarely seen people mentioned on HN. Humans, especially those come from different background, have different kinds of biases, blind
by raincole 4y ago
There is another issue I've rarely seen people mentioned on HN.
Humans, especially those come from different background, have different kinds of biases, blind spots and agendas. It's actually a good thing. It means you can have a pair of humans, such as a human writer and editor, a human researcher and a reviewer, or two independent human doctors, and they usually make less errors than just one human.
Does using two AIs (like ChatGPT + Bard) makes less error than just one AI? Are there data for this?
- akasakahakada 4y agoThis is legitimately the so called ensemble model. We can spawn one CbatGPT instance to make decision, and spawn 3 instances to ask questions and validate the decision. Since the power of ChatGPT enable it to mimic different characters, basically this ensemble can do anything.
- RugnirViking 4y agoanecdotally, a technique I have seen spreading quickly is asking the AI to simulate a conversation between multiple characters of different types (an oxford professor talking to an ambitious student) on a particular topic you want to ask it about. It lets it question itself a lot better, including sometimes going down one thought process then deciding to go in another direction.
- x86x87 4y agoYes, yes! Even more "AI". That's the solution! The old age garbage in, garbage out will finally be defeated!
- RugnirViking 4y agohave you ever used an LLM? It's clear that certain ways of asking for things have vastly better outputs. I'm describing one such way of doing that, as a way to answer the question the parent asked. I'm making no grand commentary at all on whether this technology is suitable for peer review or whatever.