3 ms·

LLMs can write a plan, and they can write about their reasoning. The question is, are they good enough? We may need another generation of LLMs that are more co

by jasfi 3y ago

LLMs can write a plan, and they can write about their reasoning. The question is, are they good enough? We may need another generation of LLMs that are more competent.

BoorishBears 3y ago
Actually LLMs can write a better plan than the author: The prompt format made absolutely no sense considering they had decided to translate away from the PDDL to arbitrary natural language. So to avoid triggering their overused Clever Hans defense, I fed GPT 4 their prompt with only the instruction: "Think critically about how we could represent these rules in a way that's clearer to an LLM. Lean into using coding style identifiers where possible, and JSON formatting" (Hopefully the author won't claim telling a model to generate JSON is secretly telling it how to move blocks!) In a fresh context window at 0 temp and gpt-4-0613 I entered the JSON formatted rules it generated, along with the instruction: Return a JSON array of [{[<valid actions>],<internal thought>, <action>}] that results in goal state ... the resulting answer solved their failed few-shot example with zero-shot _ Also funny blunder: their chain of thought example generates thoughts... after the action. Surely the author understands a transformer model can't rely on an ungenerated token to affect the action taken? Edit: Also their "disguised difficulty" version was wrong? > To perform Attack action, the following facts need to be true: Province object, Planet object, Harmony. The single word "Harmony" somehow replaced replaces "Your hands are empty"? Before that they claim it's meant to be a 1:1 replacement of entities, but the actual disguised versions are not longer valid instructions
- jasfi 3y ago
  I'm not surprised, GPT-4 really is very good, you just have to prompt it well enough. Often you don't even have to be a prompt guru.

by jasfi 3y ago

LLMs can write a plan, and they can write about their reasoning. The question is, are they good enough? We may need another generation of LLMs that are more competent.

BoorishBears 3y ago

Actually LLMs can write a better plan than the author: The prompt format made absolutely no sense considering they had decided to translate away from the PDDL to arbitrary natural language. So to avoid triggering their overused Clever Hans defense, I fed GPT 4 their prompt with only the instruction: "Think critically about how we could represent these rules in a way that's clearer to an LLM. Lean into using coding style identifiers where possible, and JSON formatting" (Hopefully the author won't claim telling a model to generate JSON is secretly telling it how to move blocks!) In a fresh context window at 0 temp and gpt-4-0613 I entered the JSON formatted rules it generated, along with the instruction: Return a JSON array of [{[<valid actions>],<internal thought>, <action>}] that results in goal state ... the resulting answer solved their failed few-shot example with zero-shot _ Also funny blunder: their chain of thought example generates thoughts... after the action. Surely the author understands a transformer model can't rely on an ungenerated token to affect the action taken? Edit: Also their "disguised difficulty" version was wrong? > To perform Attack action, the following facts need to be true: Province object, Planet object, Harmony. The single word "Harmony" somehow replaced replaces "Your hands are empty"? Before that they claim it's meant to be a 1:1 replacement of entities, but the actual disguised versions are not longer valid instructions

jasfi 3y ago
I'm not surprised, GPT-4 really is very good, you just have to prompt it well enough. Often you don't even have to be a prompt guru.