4 ms·
I've tried a bunch of models both online and offline and mixtral is the first one which avtively has me reaching for it instead of Google when I'm wondering abo
by Agentlien 3y ago
I've tried a bunch of models both online and offline and mixtral is the first one which avtively has me reaching for it instead of Google when I'm wondering about something. I also love how well it works locally with ollama.
I still sometimes need to double-check its answers and be critical of its responses. But when I want to confirm the answer I suspect, or know the gist of it but want more details, I find it invaluable.
It seems especially really strong in areas of science and computing. However, it consistently gives plausible but incorrect information when asked about Swedish art and culture. Though it does speak really good Swedish!
- ionwake 3y agoThats awesome, thank you for sharing!
- mncharity 3y ago> mixtral [...] sometimes need to double-check its answers and be critical of its responses. [...] really strong in areas of science and Caveat that common science education misconceptions compromise web, wikipedia, and textbook content, and thus both llm training sets and quick double-checks. So mixtral sometimes says the Sun itself is yellow (but does usually manage white), that white light is white because it contains all colors, that individual atoms cannot be seen with a naked eye because they are too small, and so on. A lot of US science education looks like training humans on low-quality trigger-and-response pairs for llm-like "explanation". I've wondered if one could do a fine-tune, or train, on science education research's lists of common misconceptions, or on less-often-bogus sources like Science/Nature journal editorial content, and research paper introductions.