3 ms·
But when you're a moron how can you distinguish? I'm being (mostly) serious, suppose you're a stuffed ahort trying to boost your valuation, how can you work ou
by Y_Y 9mo ago
But when you're a moron how can you distinguish?
I'm being (mostly) serious, suppose you're a stuffed ahort trying to boost your valuation, how can you work out who's smart enough to train your LLM? (Never mind how to get them to work for you!)
- aspenmartin 9mo agoI do a lot of human evaluations. Lots of Bayesian / statistical models that can infer rater quality without ground truth labels. The other thing about preference data you have to worry about (which this article gets at) is: preferences of _who_? Human raters are a significantly biased population of people, different ages, genders, religions, cultures, etc all inform preferences. Lots of work being done to leverage and model this. Then for LMArena there is the host of other biases / construct validity: people are easily fooled, even PhD experts; in many cases it’s easier for a model to learn how to persuade than actually learn the right answers. But a lot of dismissive comments as if frontier labs don’t know this, they have some of the best talent in the world. They aren’t perfect but they in a large sene know what they’re doing and what the tradeoffs of various approaches are. Human annotations are an absolute nightmare for quality which is why coding agents are so nice: they’re verifiable and so you can train them in a way closer to e.g. alphago without the ceiling of human performance
- fc417fc802 9mo ago> in many cases it’s easier for a model to learn how to persuade than actually learn the right answers So we should expect the models to eventually tend toward the same behaviors that politicians exhibit?
- c0balt 9mo agoMaybe a happy to deceive marketing/sales role would be more accurate.
- RA_Fisher 9mo ago100% (am a Bayesian statistician). Isn’t it fascinating how it comes down to quality of judgement (and the descriptions thereof)? We need an LMArena rated by experts.
- zqy123007 9mo agothey always know, they just have non-AGI incentive and asymetric upside to play along...
- atleastoptimal 9mo agothat’s why Mercor is worth 2billion
- wongarsu 9mo agoSure, on the surface judging the judge is just as hard as being the judge But at least the two examples of judging AI provided in the article can be solved by any moron by expending enough effort. Any moron can tell you what Dorothy says to Toto when entering Oz by just watching the first thirty minutes of the movie. And while validating answer B in the pan question takes some ninth-grade math (or a short trip to wikipedia), figuring out that a nine inch diameter circle is in fact not the same area as a 9x13 inch square is not rocket science. And with a bit of craft paper you could evaluate both answers even without math knowledge So the short answer is: with effort. You spend lots of effort on finding a good evaluator, so the evaluator can judge the LLM for you. Or take "average humans" and force them to spend more effort on evaluating each answer
- michaelmrose 9mo agoMaybe you need to have people rate others ratings to remove at least the worst idiots.
- XajniN 9mo agoYour social bubble is making you biased. An average human is quite dumb.