• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I have thought a lot on it. The LLM per se would not know if the question is answerable or not, as it doesn’t know if their output is good of bad.

    So there’s various approach to this issue:

    1. The classic approach, and the one used for censoring: keywords. When the llm gets a certain key word or it can get certain keyword by digesting a text input then give back a hard coded answer. Problem is that while censoring issues are limited. Hard to answer questions are unlimited, hard to hard code all.

    2. Self check answers. For everything question the llm could process it 10 times with different seeds. Then analyze the results and see if they are equivalent. If they are not then just answer that it’s unsure about the answer. Problem: multiplication of resource usage. For some questions like the one in the post, it’s possible than the multiple randomized answers give equivalent results, so it would still have a decent failure rate.

    • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Why would it not know? It certainly “knows” that it’s an LLM and it presumably “knows” how LLMs work, so it could piece this together if it was capable of self-reflection.

      • alphabethunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Precisely, it’s not capable of self-reflection, thinking, or anything of the sort. It doesn’t even understand the meaning of words