3 ms·
> Also, when you have an LLM that is too agreeable... It's not a question of whether an LLM should be agreeable or argumentative. It should aim to be correct -
by dns_snek 10mo ago
> Also, when you have an LLM that is too agreeable...
It's not a question of whether an LLM should be agreeable or argumentative. It should aim to be correct - it should be agreeable about subjective details and matters of taste, it should be argumentative when the user is wrong about a matter of fact or made an error, and it should be inquisitive and capable of actually re-evaluating a stance in a coherent and logically sound manner when challenged by the user instead of either "digging in" or just blindly agreeing.
- empath75 10mo ago> it should be agreeable about subjective details and matters of taste, What if your subjective opinion is that you think life isn't worth living, how should an LLM respond to that.
- dns_snek 10mo agoThat's philosophy and mental health, I was talking about technical or other "work" topics. But to answer the question, it depends on the framing - if someone starts the chat by saying that they feel like life isn't worth living then the LLM should probably suggest reaching out to local mental health services and either stop the conversation or play a role in "listening" to them. It shouldn't judge, encourage, or agree necessarily. But it would probably be best to cut the conversation unless there's a really high level of confidence that the system won't cause harm.
- cindyllm 10mo ago[dead]
- topaz0 10mo agoThis is what people should want from an intellectual slave, sure, and I don't think it's going to happen for llms.
- ACCount37 10mo agoWhich is not an easy thing to tune for. So much easier to just make it agree all the time or disagree all the time. And trying to bottle the lightning often just causes degeneracy when you fail.