5 ms·
I think there is no easy way to make an LLM answer "I don't know". For that, it should learn among all the stuff ingested when people effectively don't know. Bu
by az09mugen 3y ago
I think there is no easy way to make an LLM answer "I don't know". For that, it should learn among all the stuff ingested when people effectively don't know. But most people on internet write down irrelevant stuff even when they don't know instead of simply writing "I don't know".
That's a very good point.
- timini 3y agoI think its fairly simple, it needs a certain level of proof e.g references to authoritative sources, if not say "i don't know".
- cubefox 3y agoThen it is nothing more than a summarizer for search engine results.
- amarant 3y agoA lot of people have said chat-gpt/copilot is a lot like having a robotic junior dev around. I think perhaps your description is more succinct
- az09mugen 3y agoI'm really curious about one would implement that. By pondering weigths from certain sources ?
- Certhas 3y agoLLMs don't have a concept of sources for their statements. Ask them to give you some literature recommendations on something it has explained to you. You'll get plenty of plausible sounding papers that don't exist. Humans know to some extent why they know (read it in a text book, colleague mentioned it). LLMs don't seem to.
- card_zero 3y agoThey read it in a non-existent average interpolation of the books actual humans read similar things in.
- mike_hearn 3y agoAsk a human to provide accurate citations for any random thing they know and they won't be able to do a good job either. They'd probably have to search to find it, even if they know they got it from a document originally and have some clear memory of what it said.
- Jensson 3y agoYes, humans wont lie to you about it, they will research and come up with sources. Current LLM doesn't do that when asked for sources (unless they invoke a tool), they come back to you with hallucinated links that looks like links it was trained on.
- mike_hearn 3y agoUnfortunately it's not an uncommon experience when reading academic papers in some fields to find citations that, when checked, don't actually support the cited claim or sometimes don't even contain it. The papers will exist but beyond that they might as well be "hallucinations".
- Jensson 3y agoHumans can speak bullshit when they don't want to put in the effort, these LLMs always do it. That is the difference. We need to create the part that humans do when they do the deliberate work to properly create those sources etc, that kind of thinking isn't captured in the text so LLMs doesn't learn it.
- intended 3y agoThe fact that a human chooses not to do remember their citations, does not mean they lack the ability. This argument comes up many times “people don’t do this” - but that is a question of frequency, not whether or not people are capable.
- barrkel 3y agoLLMs are token completion engines. The correspondence of the text to the truth or authoritative sources is a function of being trained on text like that; with the additional wrinkle that generalization from training (a desired property or it's just a memorization engine) will produce text which is only plausibly truthful, it only resembles training data. Getting beyond this is a tricky dark art. There isn't any simple there. There's nowhere to put an if statement.
- rini17 3y agoMaybe it needs some memory retrieval step that can measure the confidence - whether there's anything related to the prompt. No idea how to train a LLM to do that.
- dmd 3y agoConsider the extremely common Amazon product question section, where you see Q: Will this product fit my Frobnitz 123? A: I don't know, I ended up buying something else. Q: Does it come with batteries? A: IDK I RETURN IT