3 ms·
I've done something similar for learning about a controversial topic. I ask it to act as if it is called Bob is a well informed supporter of one side (like Ukra
by k2xl 1y ago
I've done something similar for learning about a controversial topic. I ask it to act as if it is called Bob is a well informed supporter of one side (like Ukraine) and then act as if it is something named Alice who is a well informed supporter of another side (Russia) and they have to debate each other over a few prompts with a moderator named 'Sue'
Then after a few rounds of the debate where Sue asks a bunch of questions, I ask it to go to the judges - Mark, Phil, Sarah (and I add a few personalities to each of them... Sometimes I pretend they are famous moral philosophers) and then I have them each come up with a rubric and decide who is the winner.
Really fun, and helps me understand different sides of issues.
- rat87 1y agoThat seems like a terrible idea. At best it seems likely to help you make a false but convincing sounding case. I really hope no one is using that to help them understand controversial topics much less using that to determine their stances. Id recommend looking into actual human experts who are trustworthy and reading them. Trying to get LLM to argue the case will just get you a lot of false information presented in a more convincing fashion
- k2xl 1y agoI recommend you try it before judging. I will be honest it has been actually very useful. You are also assuming that the LLM is providing false information (or will have a higher chance of providing false information than a human)