4 ms·

[flagged]

by CharlesW 7mo ago

[flagged]

strongly-typed 7mo ago
Wait, what does NFTs have to do with RAG?
- LoganDark 7mo ago
  Nothing, I think they're just pointing out a seeming lack of awareness of what really is or isn't dead.
  - baby 7mo ago
    They were doing an ad hominem, thats what its called
- panarky 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - baby 7mo ago
    Have you read the post?
elicash 7mo ago
I have no interest in anything crypto, but they are making a proposal about NFTs tied to AI (LLMs and verifiable machine learning) so they can make ownership decisions. So it'd be alive in the making decisions sense, not in a "the technology is thriving" sense.
nl 7mo ago
I don't think RAG is dead, and I don't think NFTs have any use and think that they are completely dead. But the OP's blog is more about ZK than about NFTs, and crypto is the only place funding work on ZK. It's kind of a devil's bargain, but I've taken crypto money to work on privacy preserving tech before and would again.
prophesi 7mo ago
Not OP, but... > Of course you would have to set a temperature of 0 to prevent abuse from the operator, and also assume that an operator has access to the pre-prompt Doesn't the fact that LLM's are still non-deterministic with a 0 temperature render all of this moot? And why was I compelled to read a random blog post on the unsolved issue of validating natural language? It's a SQL injection except without a predetermined syntax to validate against, and thus a NP problem we've yet to solve.
WesleyJohnson 7mo ago
The issue I had with RAG when I tried building our own internal chat/knowledge bot was pulling in the relevant knowledge before sending to the LLM. Domain questions like "What is Cat Block B?" are common and, for a human, provide all the context that is needed for someone to answer within our org. But vectorizing that and then finding matching knowledge produced so many false positives. I tried to circumvent that by adding custom weighting based on keywords, source (Confluence, Teams, Email), but it just seemed unreliable. This was probably a year ago and, admittedly, I was diving in head first without truly understanding RAG end to end. Being able to just train a model on all of our domain knowledge would, I imagine, produce much better results.
baby 7mo ago
BTW this is what an ad hominem is, when you can’t find a flaw in an argument you find something else unrelated to attack
- CharlesW 7mo ago
  Just after that extremely gentle poke about a grift that died many years ago, you'll be pleased to see that I address the very silly claim about RAG in a straightforward, ad rem way.

[flagged]

strongly-typed 7mo ago

Wait, what does NFTs have to do with RAG?

LoganDark 7mo ago
Nothing, I think they're just pointing out a seeming lack of awareness of what really is or isn't dead.
- baby 7mo ago
  They were doing an ad hominem, thats what its called
panarky 7mo ago
[flagged]
- baby 7mo ago
  Have you read the post?

elicash 7mo ago

I have no interest in anything crypto, but they are making a proposal about NFTs tied to AI (LLMs and verifiable machine learning) so they can make ownership decisions. So it'd be alive in the making decisions sense, not in a "the technology is thriving" sense.

nl 7mo ago

I don't think RAG is dead, and I don't think NFTs have any use and think that they are completely dead. But the OP's blog is more about ZK than about NFTs, and crypto is the only place funding work on ZK. It's kind of a devil's bargain, but I've taken crypto money to work on privacy preserving tech before and would again.

prophesi 7mo ago

Not OP, but... > Of course you would have to set a temperature of 0 to prevent abuse from the operator, and also assume that an operator has access to the pre-prompt Doesn't the fact that LLM's are still non-deterministic with a 0 temperature render all of this moot? And why was I compelled to read a random blog post on the unsolved issue of validating natural language? It's a SQL injection except without a predetermined syntax to validate against, and thus a NP problem we've yet to solve.

WesleyJohnson 7mo ago

The issue I had with RAG when I tried building our own internal chat/knowledge bot was pulling in the relevant knowledge before sending to the LLM. Domain questions like "What is Cat Block B?" are common and, for a human, provide all the context that is needed for someone to answer within our org. But vectorizing that and then finding matching knowledge produced so many false positives. I tried to circumvent that by adding custom weighting based on keywords, source (Confluence, Teams, Email), but it just seemed unreliable. This was probably a year ago and, admittedly, I was diving in head first without truly understanding RAG end to end. Being able to just train a model on all of our domain knowledge would, I imagine, produce much better results.

baby 7mo ago

BTW this is what an ad hominem is, when you can’t find a flaw in an argument you find something else unrelated to attack

CharlesW 7mo ago
Just after that extremely gentle poke about a grift that died many years ago, you'll be pleased to see that I address the very silly claim about RAG in a straightforward, ad rem way.