6 ms·
How do they know the critic did not make a mistake? Do they have a critic for the critic?
by soloist11 2y ago
How do they know the critic did not make a mistake? Do they have a critic for the critic?
- OlleTO 2y agoIt's critics all the way down
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- azulster 2y agoit's literally just the oracle problem all over again
- esafak 2y agoIt's called iteration. Humans do the same thing.
- soloist11 2y agoAre you sure it's not called recursion?
- citizen_friend 2y agoIt’s not a human, and we shouldn’t assume it will have traits we do without evidence. Iteration also is when your brain meets the external world and corrects. This is a closed system.
- vidarh 2y agoWe are not assuming that. The iteration happens by taking the report and passing it to another reviewer who reviews the first review. Their comparison is between a human reviewer passing reports to a human reviewer vs. CriticGPT -> human reviewer vs. CriticGPT+human reviewer -> human reviewer.
- GaggiX 2y agoIt's written in the article, the critic makes mistakes, but it's better than not having it.
- soloist11 2y agoHow do they know it's better? The rate of mistakes is the same for both GPTs so now they have 2 sources of errors. If the error rate was lower for one then they could always apply it and reduce the error rate of the other. They're just shuffling the deck chairs and hoping the boat with a hole goes a slightly longer distance before disappearing completely underwater.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- GaggiX 2y ago>How do they know it's better? Probably just evaluation on benchmarks.
- yorwba 2y agoWhether adding unreliable components increases the overall reliability of a system depends on whether the system requires all components to work (in which case adding components can only make matters worse) or only some (in which case adding components can improve redundancy and make it more likely that the final result is correct). In the particular case of spotting mistakes made by ChatGPT, a mistake is spotted if it is spotted by the human reviewer or by the critic, so even a critic that makes many mistakes itself can still increase the number of spotted errors. (But it might decrease the spotting rate per unit time, so there are still trade-offs to be made.)
- soloist11 2y agoI see what you're saying so what OpenAI will do next is create an army of GPT critics and then run them all in parallel to take some kind of quorum vote on correctness. I guess it should work in theory if the error rate is small enough and adding more critics actually reduces the error rate. My guess is that in practice they'll converge to the population average rate of error and then pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
- jsheard 2y agoPer the article, the critic for the critic is human RLHF trainers. More specifically those humans are exploited third world workers making between $1.32 and $2 an hour, but OpenAI would rather you didn't know about that. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/ https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
- soloist11 2y agoEvery leap of civilization was built off the back of a disposable workforce. - Niander Wallace
- wmeredith 2y agoHe was the bad guy, right?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- IncreasePosts 2y agoThat is more than the average entry level position in Kenya. The work is probably also much easier (physically, that is).
- golergka 2y agoExploited? Are you saying that these employees are forced to work for below market rates, and would be better off with other opportunities available to them? If that's the case, it's truly horrible on OpenAI's part.
- vidarh 2y agoOpenAI may well still be employing plenty of people in third world countries for this. But there are also contracts providing anywhere from $20 to $100+ an hour to do this kind of work for more complex prompt/response pairs. I've done work on what (at least to my belief) is the very high end of that scale (not for OpenAI) to fill gaps, so I know firsthand that it's available, and sometimes the work is complex enough that a single response can take over an hour to evaluate because the requirements often include not just reading and reviewing the code, but ensuring it works, including fixing bugs. Most of the responses then pass through at least one more round of reviews of the fixed/updated responses. One project I did work on involved 3 reviewers (none of whom were on salaries anywhere close to the Kenyan workers you referred to) reviewing my work and providing feedback and a second pass of adjustments. So four high-paid workers altogether to process every response. Of course, I'm sure plenty lower-level/simpler work had been filtered out to be addressed with cheaper labour, but I wouldn't be so sure their costs for things like code is particularly low.
- nmca 2y agoA critic for the critic would be “Recursive Reward Modelling”, an exciting idea that has not been made to work in the real world yet.
- finger 2y agoThere is already a mistake. It refers to a function by the wrong name: os.path.comonpath > commonpath
- soloist11 2y agoIn the critical limit every GPT critic chain is essentially a spellchecker.
- ertgbnm 2y agoThat's the human's job for now. A human reviewer might have trouble catching a mistake, but they are generally pretty good at discerning a report about a mistake is valid or not. For example, finding a bug in a codebase is hard. But if a junior sends you a code snippet and says "I think this is a bug for xyz reason", do you agree? It's much easier to confidently say yes or no. So basically it changes the problem from finding a needle in a haystack to discerning if a statement is a hallucination or not.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]