4 ms·
This is incredibly fascinating. I feel like one round of RL could potentially fix "short circuits" like these. It seems to be convinced that a particular rule
by mvkel 2y ago
This is incredibly fascinating.
I feel like one round of RL could potentially fix "short circuits" like these. It seems to be convinced that a particular rule isn't "allowed," when it's totally fine. Wouldn't that mean that you just have to fine tune it a bit more on its reasoning path?
- byteknight 2y agoI believe this comes from our verbiage. If I asked you, "hey. How many Rs in strawberry?". You're going to tell me 2, because the likelihood is I am asking about the ending Rs. That's at least how I'd interpret the question without the "llm test" clouding my vision. Same for if I asked how many gullible. I'd say "it's a double L after the u". It's my guess this has muddled the training data.