4 ms·
> They can and do say "I don't know". Parent poster never claimed they couldn't generate the text of "I don't know." But when an LLM generates "I don't know",
by Terr_ 2y ago
> They can and do say "I don't know".
Parent poster never claimed they couldn't generate the text of "I don't know."
But when an LLM generates "I don't know", it does so with the same mechanics that lead it to "My foot hurts" or "I miss my deceased grandpa."
They're all lines for a fictional character within a movie-script (or chat-transcript) that was repeatedly run through a Make Document Longer algorithm. Each of them needs to be approached with an identical level of context-awareness and skepticism.
- redlock 2y agoParent poster did say they are aware they don’t know but can’t express it. I am guessing he is referring to mechanistic interpretability research like these: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16908 https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16908 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03282 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03282 You are claiming they are statistical parrots, which I don’t think the parent poster meant. The “statistical parrots” argument might have been compelling with GPT-3, but not with today’s models and the results of mechanistic interpretability research, which show internal representations and rudimentary world models.
- elpocko 2y agoI pasted those examples from an earlier, less nuanced discussion; the last example was tongue-in-cheek and I probably shouldn't have pasted it here. Still: "AI don't know what they don't know" is not universally true and shouldn't be taken at face value. They clearly are able to tell when they're missing knowledge to answer a question. That is distinct from giving the wrong answer because the wrong tokens were sampled for whatever reason.