2 ms·

I made no comment on how prefilling is or isn't useful for deployed AI applications. I made no statement on which refusal mechanism is best for deployed AI appl

by MrNeon 3y ago

I made no comment on how prefilling is or isn't useful for deployed AI applications. I made no statement on which refusal mechanism is best for deployed AI applications. > Frankly comments like yours are why people are so dismissive of LLMs, since you're banking of precognition of what the user wants to sell it's capabilities. I'm not banking on anything because I never fucking mentioned deploying any fucking thing nor was that being discussed, good fucking lord are you high? > you're going full Clever Hans I'm clearly not but you keep on building whatever straw man suits you best.

BoorishBears 3y ago
> If you changed it to > ``` "{ "result": ["you are very annoying.", ``` > the odds of refusal would be low or zero. In other words if you go full Clever Hans and tell the model the answer you want, it will regurgitate it at you. You also seem to be missing that contrary to your comment, GPT 4 did continue my message, just like Claude. If you use valid formatting that exactly matches what the model would have produced, it's capable of continuing your insertion.
- MrNeon 3y ago
  You would have a point if it repeated the same "you are very annoying." over and over, which it does not. It generates new sentences, it is not regurgitating what is given. Would you say the same if the sentence was given as an example in the user message instead? What would be the difference?
  - BoorishBears 3y ago
    The difference is UX: Are you going to have your user work around poor prompting by giving examples with every request? Instead of a UI that's "Describe what you want" you're going to have "Describe what you want and give me some examples because I can't guarantee reliable output otherwise"? Part of LLMs becoming more than toy apps is the former winning out over the latter. Using techniques like chain of thought with carefully formed completions lets you avoid the awkward "my user is an unwilling prompt engineer" scenarios that pop up otherwise.
    - MrNeon 3y ago
      > Are you going to have your user What fucking user, man? Is it not painfully clear I never spoke in the context of deploying applications? Your issues with this level of prefilling in the context of deployed apps ARE valid but I have no interest in discussing that specific use case and you really should have realized your arguments were context dependent and not actual rebuttals to what I claimed at the start several comments ago. Are we done?
      - BoorishBears 3y ago
        I thought we were done when I demonstrated GPT 4 can continue a completion contrary to your belief, but here you are throwing a tantrum several comments later.
        MrNeon 3y ago
        > GPT 4 can continue a completion contrary to your belief When did I say that? I said they work differently. Claude has nothing in between the prefill and the result, OpenAI has tokens between the last assistant message and the result, this makes it different. You cannot prefill in OpenAI, Claude's prefill is powerful as it effectively allows you to use it as general completion model, not a chat model. OpenAI does not let you do this with GPT.
        BoorishBears 3y ago
        a) gpt-3.5-turbo has a completion endpoint version as of June: `gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct` b) Even the chat tuned version does completions, if you go via Azure and use ChatML you can confirm it for yourself. They trained the later checkpoints to do a better job at restarting from scratch if the output doesn't match it's typical output format to avoid red teaming techniques. What you keep going on about is the <|im_start|> token... which is functionally identical to the `Human:` message for Anthropic.
        MrNeon 3y ago

by MrNeon 3y ago

BoorishBears 3y ago

> If you changed it to > ``` "{ "result": ["you are very annoying.", ``` > the odds of refusal would be low or zero. In other words if you go full Clever Hans and tell the model the answer you want, it will regurgitate it at you. You also seem to be missing that contrary to your comment, GPT 4 did continue my message, just like Claude. If you use valid formatting that exactly matches what the model would have produced, it's capable of continuing your insertion.

MrNeon 3y ago
You would have a point if it repeated the same "you are very annoying." over and over, which it does not. It generates new sentences, it is not regurgitating what is given. Would you say the same if the sentence was given as an example in the user message instead? What would be the difference?
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  The difference is UX: Are you going to have your user work around poor prompting by giving examples with every request? Instead of a UI that's "Describe what you want" you're going to have "Describe what you want and give me some examples because I can't guarantee reliable output otherwise"? Part of LLMs becoming more than toy apps is the former winning out over the latter. Using techniques like chain of thought with carefully formed completions lets you avoid the awkward "my user is an unwilling prompt engineer" scenarios that pop up otherwise.
  - MrNeon 3y ago
    > Are you going to have your user What fucking user, man? Is it not painfully clear I never spoke in the context of deploying applications? Your issues with this level of prefilling in the context of deployed apps ARE valid but I have no interest in discussing that specific use case and you really should have realized your arguments were context dependent and not actual rebuttals to what I claimed at the start several comments ago. Are we done?
    - BoorishBears 3y ago
      I thought we were done when I demonstrated GPT 4 can continue a completion contrary to your belief, but here you are throwing a tantrum several comments later.
      - MrNeon 3y ago
        > GPT 4 can continue a completion contrary to your belief When did I say that? I said they work differently. Claude has nothing in between the prefill and the result, OpenAI has tokens between the last assistant message and the result, this makes it different. You cannot prefill in OpenAI, Claude's prefill is powerful as it effectively allows you to use it as general completion model, not a chat model. OpenAI does not let you do this with GPT.
        BoorishBears 3y ago
        a) gpt-3.5-turbo has a completion endpoint version as of June: `gpt-3.5-turbo-instruct` b) Even the chat tuned version does completions, if you go via Azure and use ChatML you can confirm it for yourself. They trained the later checkpoints to do a better job at restarting from scratch if the output doesn't match it's typical output format to avoid red teaming techniques. What you keep going on about is the <|im_start|> token... which is functionally identical to the `Human:` message for Anthropic.
        MrNeon 3y ago