|
|
|
|
|
|
by colechristensen
4 days ago
|
|
|
>What lead? Follow it where? How tf am I or the LLM supposed to know what response to that is something you consider far more useful than the truth? There is a bias towards what your language implies. You ask: "What's wrong with this?" and an LLM will come up with a list of things that are wrong with a strong bias towards finding things that are wrong, regardless of significance or truth. LLMs are indeed Language Models. A "what's wrong" question is very likely to be followed by an answer. To say another way, LLMs accept the premise of your prompt very easily and there are very many implications built into language. "What's wrong" implies the user means "something is wrong, tell me what" Modifying the prompt to "Grade this A to F and tell me why" gets a better result because there's not a statistical implication to that sentence. For science, try arguing with an LLM for ten minutes. It mostly just agrees with you, pushing back just a little. |
|
|
On the other hand, if you purposefully take an extreme or un-PC position (e.g. "humans should commit voluntary extinction", "some people should have less rights than others"), its own context can make it default to contradicting you even if you dial back to a more nuanced position, even to the point of self-contradiction.