4 ms·
It's always felt weird that there's this whole concept with a formal name ("chain-of-thought prompting") and papers written about it, etc, and basically it boil
by Ozzie_osman 3y ago
It's always felt weird that there's this whole concept with a formal name ("chain-of-thought prompting") and papers written about it, etc, and basically it boils down to putting the phrase "Let's think step-by-step" at the end of the prompt. The obvious conclusion was that these models _should_ be trained to think step-by-step without having to prompt them to do so each time.
The other interesting thing is the pedagogical parallels of this technique. A lot of times, when teaching/learning, we reward people purely based on outcome (did you get the right answer), with mild attempts to do better (like "show your work for partial credit"). Ideally this is just baked into teaching/learning all the time (the process is rewarded as well as the outcome).
- bionhoward 3y agoMany extremely simple ideas are extremely difficult to validate with empirical evidence. We’re fortunate to have an opportunity to make many such ideas much easier to A/B test using LLMs.
- throwuwu 3y agoThinking step by step is not useful in all scenarios. Creative writing for example.
- dwaltrip 3y agoThe models should be trained to use different “ways of thinking” when they are more useful and effective. Or to even discover their own better ways of thinking.
- kenjackson 3y agoAlso remember how new this technology is. Where in the phase where things that are "obvious" are still being worked out. That's why I think the naysayers are overly cynical about this technology. I think we're still on the exponential part of the curve.