4 ms·
That happened because the last message is after the fix and it received the garbled history as the prompt. All it's doing is noticing that makes no sense and s
by fsmv 3y ago
That happened because the last message is after the fix and it received the garbled history as the prompt.
All it's doing is noticing that makes no sense and saying so. How could it not recognize it? The additional message is an entirely new instance not a thing that has memory.
- ux-app 3y ago>All it's doing is noticing that makes no sense and saying so. How could it not recognize it? you say that like it's the simplest thing in the world. it really amazes me how quickly people acclimate to this mind-blowing tech.
- fsmv 3y agoI just mean, given that LLMs exist this isn't a surprising result. It only looks surprising because the UI makes you forget that each prompt is a completely new universe to the model.
- block_dagger 3y agoI wouldn't call a step in a history-aware conversation a completely new universe. By that logic, every single time a token is generated is a new universe even though the token is largely dependent on the prompt, which includes custom instructions, chat history, and all tokens generated in the response so far.
- mewpmewp2 3y agoWell, I would have also said or thought that each token actually is a new universe in a sense. You could rotate between different LLMs for each token for example or instances of the same LLM or branch into different possibilities. Input gets cycled again as a whole.
- intended 3y agoI’m not sure how you are using the term “history aware”, Would a time series forecasting tool be history aware ?
- astrange 3y agoThe LLM has very little memory between two tokens of the same message (there might be a little in the sampling algorithm), so it should be equally capable of noticing an error in the same message as a new one.