2 ms·

My 'trick' is to use one model to check another. I'll start by saying I'm skeptical of the answer and ask it to state its reasoning. It's the same as asking a

by esafak 1y ago

My 'trick' is to use one model to check another. I'll start by saying I'm skeptical of the answer and ask it to state its reasoning. It's the same as asking a person to double check; it works because the models know different things. The next step would be to use a lightweight model to automate the ensembling...

schneems 1y ago
The problem I have with this approach is that it seems models get confused with prescriptive information such as print “it worked” or a comment stating the desired intent of code (which it doesn’t do at all). As opposed to descriptive information: generating priors and comparing them to actual output to yield either confirmation/refutation or surprise. I think double checking is better than not, but without the ability to really “know” reason it feels a bit like adding one more hull layer to the titanic in an effort to make it unsinkable.
quinnjh 1y ago
I’ve been utilizing this too but I’m not sure it gets closer to truth, rather gives me more stuff to skim over and decide for myself. Do you find you generally get a well reasoned outcome or do you also find the model stretching to come up with a take that aligns with your skepticism?
koreth1 1y ago
> I'll start by saying I'm skeptical of the answer and ask it to state its reasoning. How do you tell if it's actually stating the reasoning that got it to its answer originally, as opposed to constructing a plausible-sounding explanation after the fact? Or is the goal just to see if it detects mistakes, rather than to actually get it to explain how it arrived at the answer?
- esafak 1y ago
  The act of making it state its reasoning can help it uncover mistakes. Note that I'm asking a second model to do this; not the original one, otherwise I would not expect a different result.
  - mh- 1y ago
    I would totally expect a different result even on the same model. Especially if you're doing this via a chat interface (vs API) where you can't control the temperature parameters. But yes, it'll be more effective on a different model.
baq 1y ago
Inmates are running the asylum, but the twist is they second guess each other. Brilliant! ;)

by esafak 1y ago

schneems 1y ago

The problem I have with this approach is that it seems models get confused with prescriptive information such as print “it worked” or a comment stating the desired intent of code (which it doesn’t do at all). As opposed to descriptive information: generating priors and comparing them to actual output to yield either confirmation/refutation or surprise. I think double checking is better than not, but without the ability to really “know” reason it feels a bit like adding one more hull layer to the titanic in an effort to make it unsinkable.

quinnjh 1y ago

I’ve been utilizing this too but I’m not sure it gets closer to truth, rather gives me more stuff to skim over and decide for myself. Do you find you generally get a well reasoned outcome or do you also find the model stretching to come up with a take that aligns with your skepticism?

koreth1 1y ago

> I'll start by saying I'm skeptical of the answer and ask it to state its reasoning. How do you tell if it's actually stating the reasoning that got it to its answer originally, as opposed to constructing a plausible-sounding explanation after the fact? Or is the goal just to see if it detects mistakes, rather than to actually get it to explain how it arrived at the answer?

esafak 1y ago
The act of making it state its reasoning can help it uncover mistakes. Note that I'm asking a second model to do this; not the original one, otherwise I would not expect a different result.
- mh- 1y ago
  I would totally expect a different result even on the same model. Especially if you're doing this via a chat interface (vs API) where you can't control the temperature parameters. But yes, it'll be more effective on a different model.

baq 1y ago

Inmates are running the asylum, but the twist is they second guess each other. Brilliant! ;)