3 ms·

> A better eval is to use actual scientifically tested psychology test on text (the native and strongest domain for LLMs), for example the sort of scenarios use

by tivert 3y ago

> A better eval is to use actual scientifically tested psychology test on text (the native and strongest domain for LLMs), for example the sort of scenarios used to gauge when children develop theory of mind (“Alice puts her keys on the table then leaves the room. Bob moves the keys to the drawer. Alice returns. Where does she think the keys are?”) which GPT-4 can handle easily; it is very clear from this that GPT has a theory of mind. Aren't you confusing having a theory of mind with being able to output the right answer to a test? Isn't your proposed evaluation especially problematic because an "actual scientifically tested psychology test" is likely in the training data along with a lot of discussion and analysis of that test and the correct and incorrect answers that can be given?

famouswaffles 3y ago
How do I know you have theory of mind or are concious if not the "right" response to a test ? As far as I'm concerned, the only person I can be certain is concious is me. It doesn't have to be a "scientifically tested psychology test" Construct your own story with multiple characters of varying knowledge and beliefs and see how it does.
- tivert 3y ago
  You're missing the point. With prior knowledge of the test, even something that verifiably lacks the cognitive capability to legitimately pass the test (e.g. FizzBuzz level stuff) can pass by cheating.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Yes, but if you keep shoving tests at it, including brand new tests, and in total more than it could've ever memorized, and it keeps passing, then perhaps it's no longer cheating.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    We are not incapable of creating new tests if that's the issue
theptip 3y ago
Of course when testing an LLM you do not use the exact text from studies in the training set. There are an infinite number of structural permutations that preserve the methodology sufficiently to be comparable to the existing literature, while being distinct enough to be outside the training distribution. Of course, another approach you can take if you suspect contamination is to ask follow-up questions that are less likely to be in any training data; if the LLM is a mere stochastic parrot without a ToM it will not be able to give well-formed answers to follow-up questions. Perhaps if I'd said "established psychology research methodology" the intent would have been clearer?

by tivert 3y ago

famouswaffles 3y ago

How do I know you have theory of mind or are concious if not the "right" response to a test ? As far as I'm concerned, the only person I can be certain is concious is me. It doesn't have to be a "scientifically tested psychology test" Construct your own story with multiple characters of varying knowledge and beliefs and see how it does.

tivert 3y ago
You're missing the point. With prior knowledge of the test, even something that verifiably lacks the cognitive capability to legitimately pass the test (e.g. FizzBuzz level stuff) can pass by cheating.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Yes, but if you keep shoving tests at it, including brand new tests, and in total more than it could've ever memorized, and it keeps passing, then perhaps it's no longer cheating.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  We are not incapable of creating new tests if that's the issue

theptip 3y ago

Of course when testing an LLM you do not use the exact text from studies in the training set. There are an infinite number of structural permutations that preserve the methodology sufficiently to be comparable to the existing literature, while being distinct enough to be outside the training distribution. Of course, another approach you can take if you suspect contamination is to ask follow-up questions that are less likely to be in any training data; if the LLM is a mere stochastic parrot without a ToM it will not be able to give well-formed answers to follow-up questions. Perhaps if I'd said "established psychology research methodology" the intent would have been clearer?