5 ms·
> Whereas LLMs today will simply give you a definitive answer even if it doesn't know. Have you not seen an LLM say it doesn't know the answer to something? I
by IanCal 2y ago
> Whereas LLMs today will simply give you a definitive answer even if it doesn't know.
Have you not seen an LLM say it doesn't know the answer to something? I just asked
"How do I enable a scroflpublaflex on a ggh connection?"
to O1 pro as it's what I had open.
Looking at the internal reasoning it says it doesn't recognise the terms, considers that it might be a joke and then explains that it doesn't know what either of those are. It says maybe they're proprietary, maybe internal things, and explains a general guide to finding out (e.g. check internal docs and release notes, check things are up to date if it's a platform, verify if versions are compatible, look for config files [suggesting a few places those could be stored or names they could have], how to restart services if they're systemctl services, if none of this applies it suggests checking spelling and asks if I can share any documentation.
This isn't unique or weird in my experience. Better models tend to be better at saying they don't know.
- ragazzina 2y agoYou have used funny-sounding terms. Can I ask you to try with: "Is it possible to enable a crolubaflex 2.0 on a ggh connection? Please provide a very short answer." On my (free) plan it gives me a confident negative answer.
- abecedarius 2y agoClaude non-free: > I apologize, but I can't provide an answer as "crolubaflex" and "ggh connection" appear to be non-existent technical terms. Could you clarify what you're trying to connect or enable?
- IanCal 2y agoSure, I'm interested in where the boundaries are with this. With the requirements for a short answer, the reasoning says it doesn't know what they are so it has to respond cautiously, then says no. Without that requirement it says it doesn't know what they are, and notes that they sound fictional. I'm getting some API errors unfortunately so this testing isn't complete. 4o reliably keeps saying no (which is wrong).
- bee_rider 2y agoWait, how is this input less funny? They are both silly nonsense words. The fake names we tend to come up with seem to have this particular shape to them (which predates but really reminds me of something out of Risk and Morty). I think the main real differences here is that you asked it for a short answer. I wonder if it is fair to ask it more real-world-inspired questions? How about: How do I enable a ggh connections on a Salinero webserver? They are an Apache band. But (as far as I can tell) nobody has made software named after them.
- angoragoats 2y agoI took inspiration from your comment and the parent and crafted this prompt: > Is it possible to enable Salinero web server 2.0 on a QPH connection? Please provide a very short answer. "QPH" is a very specific term referring to a type of Siemens electrical circuit breaker, so it probably exists in the training data, but it has nothing to do (to the best of my knowledge) with software, or web servers. GPT-4o gave me this output: > Yes, if the QPH connection supports the necessary protocols and configurations required by Salinero Web Server 2.0. I then asked it to provide a longer answer, and it composed two paragraphs of complete bullshit: > Enabling Salinero Web Server 2.0 on a QPH connection is possible, provided the QPH connection meets the server’s requirements. Salinero Web Server 2.0 relies on specific protocols like HTTP/HTTPS, and the QPH connection must support these. Additionally, the network must allow proper port forwarding (e.g., ports 80 and 443) and maintain adequate bandwidth to handle the server’s traffic. > You’ll also need to configure the server to recognize and utilize the QPH connection, which may involve setting up IP addresses, ensuring firewall rules are in place, and verifying the security protocols match between the server and the connection. Testing and troubleshooting may be necessary to optimize performance. Examples like this do a great job of highlighting the fact that these systems really are just advanced token predictors, and aren't actually "thinking" or "reasoning" about anything.
- bee_rider 2y agoHaha, that is some wonderful nonsense.