3 ms·
Training it not to do it still means it cannot do it. Some other LLM could do it, but then it would have other issues. There is no system that can outperform a
by TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Training it not to do it still means it cannot do it. Some other LLM could do it, but then it would have other issues. There is no system that can outperform a human on "literally everything".
- circuit10 3y agoIt’s not true that it’s an inherent limitation of LLMs though. OpenAI just decided that it was too risky to have ChatGPT give opinions or express preferences or feelings
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI don’t think that’s the only reason they decided to use RLHF. I think the raw model without RLHF would just fail differently, rather than not failing.
- circuit10 3y agoIt’s possible to do RLHF without training that out
- pmoriarty 3y agoThere's no single human that can outperform every human on "literally everything". But some humans can outperform some other humans on some things. Likewise, some LLMs (and other AI's) can outperform some humans at some things (often at many things)... but not yet on everything... yet.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoWell I was replying to a comment that said “i feel like if you put gpt4 up against the median man on the street it would be better at literally everything” so yes you’re right but that’s my point. GPT4 is better than some people at some things but it’s not better than most people at “literally everything”.