3 ms·
The basic results are interesting, but what really surprised me is that asking them to double-check didn't work. Falling for an "optical illusion" is one thing,
by jsnider3 1y ago
The basic results are interesting, but what really surprised me is that asking them to double-check didn't work. Falling for an "optical illusion" is one thing, but being unable to see the truth once you know the illusion there is much worse.
- jerf 1y agoI'm not particularly convinced asking an LLM to "double check" has much significant semantic meaning. It seems more like a way to get it to re-roll the dice. If you ask it to "double-check" something that it is in fact correct about it'll quite often talk itself into changing to something wrong. If it's going to be wrong every time, it'll be wrong every time it double-checks too. You can test this claim by asking it to double-check itself when you think it is correct. If you always stop when it gets it right you're risking Clever-Hans-ing yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans (And be sure to do it a couple of times. In situations of sufficient confidence it isn't easy to talk it out of a claim, but it's those borderline ones you want to worry about.)
- MagicMoonlight 1y agoBecause it isn’t thinking. Asking it to “double check” is like pressing the equals button on a calculator a second time. It just runs the same calculation again.