Comment by ethbr1
1 year ago
> If you don't hit that kill switch, it just keeps doubling down on absurdly complex/incorrect/hallucinatory stuff.
If you think about it, that's probably the most difficult problem conversational LLMs need to overcome -- balancing sticking to conversational history vs abandoning it.
Humans do this intuitively.
But it seems really difficult to simultaneously (a) stick to previous statements sufficiently to avoid seeming ADD in a conveSQUIRREL and (b) know when to legitimately bail on a previous misstatement or something that was demonstrably false.
What's SOTA in how this is being handled in current models, as conversations go deeper and situations like the one referenced above arise? (false statement, user correction, user expectation of subsequent corrected statement that still follows the rear of the conversational history)
Here's something a human does but an LLM doesn't:
If you talk for a while and the facts don't add up and make sense, an intelligent human will notice that, and get upset, and will revisit and dig in and propose experiments and make edits to make all the facts logically consistent. An LLM will just happily go in circles respinning the garbage.
I want to hang out with the humans you've been hanging out with. I know so many people who can't process basic logic or evidence that for my pandemic project a few years I did a year-long podcast about it, even made up a new word describe people who couldn't process evidence "Dysevidentia".
People who have been taught by various forms of news/social media that any evidence presented is fabricated to support only one side of a discussion... And that there's no such thing as impartial factually based reality, only one that someone is trying to present to them.
> "Dysevidentia"
This is great.-
> stick to previous statements sufficiently to avoid seeming ADD in a conveSQUIRREL
:)