Asklemmy

54653 readers

629 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

Do LLMs "have" the "abillity" to be told they are wrong or incorrect and be able to contest that? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by cheese_greater@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think i've only once flat out told one it was wrong about a specific assertion I quoted and it immediately was able to find its way to what I knew to be the correct claim.

I just wonder what would happen if i was in fact mistaken and I told it confidently it was wrong without elaborating

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The best sort of methodology I’ve found to coerce Claude or whatever (we are strongly encouraged to use it, because you know, tech these days) is (for a single agent) to define a process that includes proving its work and citing sources. For agentic flow, you basically just assign a contrarian role in particular domains to some of the agents - ideally all of this is also hooked into an MCP server that includes deterministic utilities to improve accuracy and solution arrival speed.

It’s basically just a shitty, brute-forced, massively over complicated Monte Carlo algorithm that’s wildly inefficient in terms of energy usage and infrastructural cost, that also happens to be turning our economy into a highly flammable house of cards.

Can you tell what my opinion of all this bullshit is, despite knowing how to do all of this crap reasonably well? 😛

[–] affenlehrer@feddit.org 1 points 18 hours ago

I think that's a good approach. Personally I find LLMs quite fascinating but they're deeply flawed. They can barely be used in production environments, especially unsupervised. The workflows regarding LLMs are very esoteric with specific prompting techniques etc and while all LLMs have similar flaws each model and model version behaves differently. It's super weird and unreliable. Like one big workaround that has so much investment that it keeps improving every month but still stays shitty at it's base.