3 ms·

> It is applying symbolic precedence rules to prose language. These rules are not universal and certainly not when writing in prose form. You have to apply som

by Ukv 2y ago

> It is applying symbolic precedence rules to prose language. These rules are not universal and certainly not when writing in prose form. You have to apply some form of precedence in order to evaluate it at all. Question is whether to use PEMDAS, or left-to-right. I don't see anything wrong with the LLM's initial choice for the former, particuarly since it can explain the alternative and that it may be the more likely intention if spoken casually out loud as opposed to written as text. To potentially get back more to the core of the issue (rather than going on a tangent about whether an answer many humans would give is a misinterpretation): How do you define understanding? What do you think is currently missing? -- (edit, to respond to your edit:) -- > LLMs frequently misinterpret and proceed without hesitation. They lack the necessary understanding to ask for clarification. I'd conjecture that always giving an answer and not asking for clarification first may be an artifact of the system prompt/RLHF of the LLM you're using. Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding?

jqpabc123 2y ago
Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis than simply making assumptions and plowing ahead to the wrong conclusion. LLMs clearly have no understanding of what "the letters in 'Hippopotamus'" means --- and they aren't smart enough to ask for or to really grasp an explanation.
- Ukv 2y ago
  > > Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? > Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis [...] Then if asking for clarification requires understanding, what do you make of cases where the LLM does ask for clarification (e.g: https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png)? If it's doing something that requires understanding, does that not imply understanding?
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    It's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this not that common and typically only occurs in very simple cases. In my experience, an LLM will typically just plow ahead in most cases and let the user figure it out --- or not.
    - Ukv 2y ago
      > typically only occurs in very simple cases Would you agree then that it has understanding of at least these simple cases? Personally I think the fact ChatGPT/etc. don't ask for clarification more often is largely just down to system prompt and RLHF encouraging it to always give an answer, not necessarily any deeper limitation of LLMs. May be worth testing how well it can recognize ambiguity when specifically tasked to do so, or standard Q&A but with a system prompt that clarifies that it can ask for information before answering.
      - jqpabc123 2y ago
        Not necessarily. It would be much more convincing if they were able to do so *consistently*. In my experience, they do not. Everything they produce requires verification --- unless the results don't really matter.
        Ukv 2y ago
        > Not necessarily. You claimed asking for clarification requires understanding, and then agreed my example showed it asking for clarification. That does logically necessitate understanding (if ¬U ⇒ ¬C, and C, then U). > It would be much more convincing if they were able to do so consistently. In my experience, they do not. I have a suspicion that your experience as such may largely be due to using chatbots conditioned to directly give an answer - opposed to being representative of fundamental lack of ability. Not to say that LLMs are perfect or at human-level on the task yet, though. What rate of correctly identifying ambiguous sentences would you set? I could collect a dataset and give it a shot.

by Ukv 2y ago

jqpabc123 2y ago

Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis than simply making assumptions and plowing ahead to the wrong conclusion. LLMs clearly have no understanding of what "the letters in 'Hippopotamus'" means --- and they aren't smart enough to ask for or to really grasp an explanation.

Ukv 2y ago
> > Do you believe that asking for clarification on ambigious questions requires understanding? > Absolutely! Recognizing ambiguity requires a deeper level of cognition and analysis [...] Then if asking for clarification requires understanding, what do you make of cases where the LLM does ask for clarification (e.g: https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png https://i.imgur.com/OXQF2nx.png)? If it's doing something that requires understanding, does that not imply understanding?
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  It's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, this not that common and typically only occurs in very simple cases. In my experience, an LLM will typically just plow ahead in most cases and let the user figure it out --- or not.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    > typically only occurs in very simple cases Would you agree then that it has understanding of at least these simple cases? Personally I think the fact ChatGPT/etc. don't ask for clarification more often is largely just down to system prompt and RLHF encouraging it to always give an answer, not necessarily any deeper limitation of LLMs. May be worth testing how well it can recognize ambiguity when specifically tasked to do so, or standard Q&A but with a system prompt that clarifies that it can ask for information before answering.
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      Not necessarily. It would be much more convincing if they were able to do so *consistently*. In my experience, they do not. Everything they produce requires verification --- unless the results don't really matter.
      - Ukv 2y ago
        > Not necessarily. You claimed asking for clarification requires understanding, and then agreed my example showed it asking for clarification. That does logically necessitate understanding (if ¬U ⇒ ¬C, and C, then U). > It would be much more convincing if they were able to do so consistently. In my experience, they do not. I have a suspicion that your experience as such may largely be due to using chatbots conditioned to directly give an answer - opposed to being representative of fundamental lack of ability. Not to say that LLMs are perfect or at human-level on the task yet, though. What rate of correctly identifying ambiguous sentences would you set? I could collect a dataset and give it a shot.