4 ms·

I've noticed if I give chat GPT an algorithm it gives me consistent results when it shows it's work but if I ask it not to show it's work and just give me the a

• famouswaffles 4y ago
  chain of thought prompting. It's well known https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903
• arlcode 4y ago
  LLMs don't have an inner monologue. By their very nature they only "know" what they have written down and must infer the final answer from that token by token. They fundamentally can't do certain things such as complex iteration or track back. When you ask for chain of thought thinking, you allow the LLM to create a "buffer space" and break down the task into more manageable substeps thereby improving the quality of the results.
  • afiori 4y ago
    I feel like this can be Implemented in the UI: First you wrap the user query with "the user asked you: ... . What are the reasoning steps you need?" and then you prompt with "considering `<previous answer>` now answer <user prompt>" Obviously this is clearly hackable so it would need improvements.
  • vintermann 4y ago
    The Bing LM, or rather the service, did have "inner monologue" in the sense of text that it would generate, but not show to the user, and treat as "thoughts" to guide the generation of an actual reply that the user would see. We know this because it happily told us, including the json format it uses internally.
    • arlcode 4y ago
      Interesting. I didn't know that. When using gpt-4 directly through the API we can emulate this behavior
    • beepbooptheory 4y ago
      And you trust what it told you?
      • vintermann 4y ago
        Yup, for the same reason I trust e.g. jailbreaks exposing the prompt: it was consistent. Really, just asking again is a fine way to expose all sorts of "hallucinations" in a LM.
      • int_19h 4y ago
        No, but the reconstructed examples have "im_start" and "im_end", which strongly implies that it is, if not verbatim, then a close enough restatement of the real deal. Take a look: https://www.make-safe-ai.com/is-bing-chat-safe/Prompts_Conversations.txt https://www.make-safe-ai.com/is-bing-chat-safe/Prompts_Conve...
  • wrycoder 4y ago
    https://youtu.be/Rog9oHtVmjM https://youtu.be/Rog9oHtVmjM Start at 7:30 to see example of backtracking.
• adnmcq999 4y ago
  I just watched a video where the guy touches on GPT-4 limitations and one of those is simple math. He asks it some order of operations question and it outputs the correct answer but only if it does it step by step. It then apologizes and says its original incorrect answer was “a typo.” Video: https://youtu.be/qbIk7-JPB2c https://youtu.be/qbIk7-JPB2c
• leobg 4y ago
  GPT is auto regressive. That means each output token becomes part of the new input sequence. Which is to say, the beginning of the model’s answer becomes part of your prompt. If the model makes some mistake in the beginning, it now needs to explain / make sense of that mistake. Kind of like a split-brain patient whom you ask why they got up, and they then say, to get a Coke. [1] In psychology, that is called confabulation. In machine learning, they use “hallucination“, probably so they can use the term across several disciplines, like language, audio, vision, etc. [1] https://www.brainscape.com/flashcards/chapter-4-hemispheric-specialization-6529663/packs/10319850 https://www.brainscape.com/flashcards/chapter-4-hemispheric-...
  • Jiocus 4y ago
    The psychology of split-brain is a nice gateway to 'The Bicameral Mind', a major theme about how the conception of the AI's works in the series Westworld. Nice!
    • leobg 4y ago
      Thank you. I am, in fact, reading it. Fascinating read. (How come all the best books were written in the 70s? Just survivership bias?)
      • jychang 4y ago
        Because the 1970s had bad science that was poorly replicated, especially in psychology. Just because a theory sounds nice and seems to make sense doesn’t mean it’s scientific