5 ms·
> You can always prompt it to respond differently though. No, you cannot. I rarely do anything with LMs [1], but if I do I ask them to code "blocked clause de
by thesz 3y ago
> You can always prompt it to respond differently though.
No, you cannot.
I rarely do anything with LMs [1], but if I do I ask them to code "blocked clause decomposition" [2] in Haskell. Blocked clause decomposition is very, very simple as far as algorithm's implementation complexity goes and Haskell is just an unusual but simple implementation language.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.07183.pdf
[2] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/publications/bcd.pdf
I tried that on one less known model (my son sent me a link) and on Phind two times.
The Phind's responces were very illuminating ones.
On a first try, it tried to make me code that myself by pointing to a paper that does not contain any blocked clause decomposition algorithm(s), just worthless combinations of them and references to other papers. Of course, I read that paper before. When I specifically asked to provide me with code, it did not even provided me with the correct type of blocked clause, which should be a pair of a CNF clause and a literal that blocks it.
On a second try I could not even pass through bullshitting phase - I just was not able to persuade a LM to write any code. The second try I attempted after I saw an advert here on HN about Phind's new and updated LM, better at coding.
Try that youself with your unusual but known problem of choice.
And this is exactly a problem of collapse of knowledge: you can't ask an LM to code you a problem it hasn't seen several dozen of times during training. You just cannot, you will not get a satisfying answer.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago> And this is exactly a problem of collapse of knowledge: you can't ask an LM to code you a problem it hasn't seen several dozen of times during training. You just cannot, you will not get a satisfying answer. I think that's more a function of the coding ability of the model you are using, and obviously they are going to do much better on languages better represented in the training set. What the paper is referring to as "knowledge collapse" isn't inability to do something, but rather getting a mid response since by definition that's going to dominate any normal (pardon the pun!) distribution. Here's what he said: "While large language models are trained on vast amounts of diverse data, they naturally generate output towards the 'center' of the distribution." But, you can generally prompt around this sort of thing by asking the model to adopt a preferred context such as "you're an expert xxx", providing of course that is did see such expert-tagged material in the training set.
- thesz 3y ago> But, you can generally prompt around this sort of thing by asking the model to adopt a preferred context such as "you're an expert xxx", providing of course that is did see such expert-tagged material in the training set. So, I need LM to be an expert in SAT solving and an expert Haskell programmer. This means I need LM to be trained on the SAT solving and on vast amount of Haskell code. I think it is already easy to see that LM should be trained in an intersection of quite fringe (yes, I am watching that TV series right now) things. I also think that it is beyond reason to ask for this.
- p1esk 3y agoPlease get back to us when you try whatever you’re trying to do with a good model (gpt4, opus, or ultra). I recommend refraining from making (and especially from posting) any conclusions until then.
- thesz 3y ago> a good model Strongly reminds me of "no true scotsman." If you have an access to a good model, try that simple problem of blocked clause decomposition and please get back to us.
- p1esk 3y agoI do have access to good models, but you are the one making far reaching statements about LLMs. Please preface your future posts on the topic with “I’ve never tried any decent models, so I don’t know what I’m talking about”.
- empath-nirvana 3y agoI uploaded the paper to chatgpt and it summarized it, wrote pseudo code and wrote haskell code with very little prompting from me... no idea if it's _good_ code, because I didn't run it and I don't know the domain or haskell, but it did produce code -- and explained that some of it is non trivial to implement and might need more attention and explained why.
- __loam 3y agoOkay so you have no idea how good the output is.
- FridgeSeal 3y agoBut this is _exactly_ the problem being discussed. Domain expert: “I cannot get it to produce something that even approximately resembles x” Person: “I gave it the paper and I got maybe x?” There is a fundamental knowledge gap here, just because you can get it to do something isn’t the goal, or even a good outcome. The illusion that it’s capable of doing something it evidently cannot is a dangerous one, because people who don’t know better, and are being convinced that they do understand or comprehend when they don’t.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoI believe if you pay for Phind Pro it'll give you access to GPT-4 and Claude Opus, which are the two most capable models. If you are just using the free version of Phind, then it uses some MUCH smaller and less capable model of their own. Even if you use Phind Pro, or Phind Plus, it says their own most capable model is Phind 70B (tiny compared to GPT-4 class models). You can't just use Phind and take that as indicative of what state-of-the-art models can do, without knowing what model you are actually using. You also can't expect any of these models to do as well with Haskell as they do with Python or Java which they will have seen massively more of during training.
- elicksaur 3y ago> You also can't expect any of these models to do as well with Haskell as they do with Python or Java which they will have seen massively more of during training. This is exactly the person’s point. Did you try this Haskell problem with a paid version and can provide an example that actually disputes the described experience? Why would someone pay for the premium version of a product when they don’t perceive the free version as working?