3 ms·
>Either you allow temperature to drive creativity, consistently in a way that can be influenced and analysed, or you adulterate that process for the purposes of
by Imnimo 1mo ago
>Either you allow temperature to drive creativity, consistently in a way that can be influenced and analysed, or you adulterate that process for the purposes of meeting a corporate/legal directive, in a way that is proprietary and obscure
This framing does not make sense to me. What do you mean by "influenced and analysed"? How have you or anyone been influencing or analyzing the randomness behind the sampling process to create better writing? What makes the unadulterated randomness "driving creativity" but a different random choice uncreative?
- dofm 1mo ago> How have you or anyone been influencing or analyzing the randomness behind the sampling process to create better writing? You're mischaracterising or misunderstanding my point, or I mangled it. I mean it is possible to analyse, control, monitor, study the impact of changing temperature on the writing, yes? The point about watermarking is that this relationship — change the temperature, see the effect — is now being adjusted by an unstated, secret process you explicitly can't control. (I gather Anthropic have recently taken away this setting anyway; that was news to me.)
- Imnimo 1mo agoI don't think watermarking breaks this relationship. Watermarked text is still being sampled from the model's output distribution, and adjusting the temperature still has the same affect on that output distribution. I think a good intuition here is that watermarking is sort of like picking a specific PRNG seed. It's not changing or interfering with the temperature - we're still sampling from the model's probability distribution. But we're making it so the analog of the PRNG seed is coupled to the previous context.