3 ms·

There's a list of things the author did to change the "generate" side in the first two paragraphs of the article. The heuristic isn't the fine-tuning, it's the

There's a list of things the author did to change the "generate" side in the first two paragraphs of the article. The heuristic isn't the fine-tuning, it's the actual LLM, which is clearly pruning the set of possibilities massively. That's a reasonably common usage of the word. I agree combining it with some kind of search would be interesting, but still I think you're being overly negative about the results here. I'm actually busy training an alphazero for the arc problems, which I plan to try and hook up to a language model for reward generation, so we'll see how that fares! I've read that paper, but thanks for the reference, this comment section is a goldmine.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> There's a list of things the author did to change the "generate" side in the first two paragraphs of the article. I can't see where that is. All I can see the author saying they did is prompting and filtering of returned answers, none of which is going anywhere near the weights of the language model (that's where I'm claiming the "generator" is residing). >> I'm actually busy training an alphazero for the arc problems, which I plan to try and hook up to a language model for reward generation, so we'll see how that fares! That sounds exciting. Good luck with your effort!
- bubblyworld 2y ago
  Yeah, you don't play with the weights in language models, you play with the residual stream by prompting (and occasionally by direct modification if you're being clever). But that does affect the model's generation! (obviously? otherwise there would be no need for a prompt in the first place, and all the recent residual stream modification research wouldn't work). But I think if we just banned the word "generator" we probably wouldn't disagree on much here. > Good luck with your effort! Thanks =)

3 ms·

There's a list of things the author did to change the "generate" side in the first two paragraphs of the article. The heuristic isn't the fine-tuning, it's the

by bubblyworld 2y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> There's a list of things the author did to change the "generate" side in the first two paragraphs of the article. I can't see where that is. All I can see the author saying they did is prompting and filtering of returned answers, none of which is going anywhere near the weights of the language model (that's where I'm claiming the "generator" is residing). >> I'm actually busy training an alphazero for the arc problems, which I plan to try and hook up to a language model for reward generation, so we'll see how that fares! That sounds exciting. Good luck with your effort!
- bubblyworld 2y ago
  Yeah, you don't play with the weights in language models, you play with the residual stream by prompting (and occasionally by direct modification if you're being clever). But that does affect the model's generation! (obviously? otherwise there would be no need for a prompt in the first place, and all the recent residual stream modification research wouldn't work). But I think if we just banned the word "generator" we probably wouldn't disagree on much here. > Good luck with your effort! Thanks =)