4 ms·
This is not about finding the most effective solution, it’s about showing that they “understand” the problem. Could they write the algorithm if it were not in t
by zoul 1y ago
This is not about finding the most effective solution, it’s about showing that they “understand” the problem. Could they write the algorithm if it were not in their training set?
- boredhedgehog 1y agoIf that's the point, shouldn't they ask the model to explain the principle for any number of discs? What's the benefit of a concrete application?
- johnecheck 1y agoBecause that would prove absolutely nothing. There are numerous examples of tower of Hanoi explanations in the training set.
- elbear 1y agoHow do you check that a human understood it and not simply memorised different approaches?
- YeGoblynQueenne 1y agoYou ask them to solve several instances of the problem?
- godelski 1y agoIt's hard. But usually we ask several variations and make them show their work. But a human also isn't an LLM. It is much harder for them to just memorize a bunch of things, which makes evaluation easier. But they also get tired and hungry, which makes evaluation harder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- elbear 1y agoIf we're talking about solving an equation, for example, it's not hard to memorize. Actually, that's how most students do it, they memorize the steps and what goes where[1]. But they don't really know why the algorithm works the way it does. That's what I meant by understanding. [1] In learning psychology there is something called the interleaving effect. What it says is that you solve several problems of the same kind, you start to do it automatically after the 2nd or the 3rd problem, so you stop really learning. That's why you should interleave problems that are solved with different approaches/algorithms, so you don't do things on autopilot.
- godelski 1y agoYes, tests fail in this method. But I think you can understand why the failure is larger when we're talking about a giant compression machine. It's not even a leap in logic. Maybe a small step
- elbear 1y agoI'm not sure what you mean. Btw, I'm not in the field, just have thought a lot about the topic.
- qarl 1y agoThat's an interesting question. It's not the one they are trying to answer, however. From my personal experience: yes, if you describe a problem without mentioning the name of the algorithm, an LLM will detect and apply the algorithm appropriately. They behave exactly how a smart human would behave. In all cases.