Live data from Hacker News

Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

openreview.net

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

almost nothing involving NLP requires solutions anywhere near that accuracy rate. I've seen the self driving comparisons a lot but they straight up make little sense. there's a reason microsoft's various copilot suites have already popped up (365, X, Bing). massive value to be gained already in the here and now.

To play devil's advocate, we still have no idea how economically impactful the Copilot suites will be. I don't think this is the most likely outcome, but I can absolutely see a scenario in which these end up being minor features that are rarely used by the typical worker.

I've messed with ChatGPT before but this weekend I tried to use it seriously to hack together a python demo in the computer vision space. I appreciate it and it's a way better rubber duck for me to talk my ideas through with and generate sample snippets, but hallucination is a problem, and the more intricate and customized the code being developed, the more prone it's been to misinterpretation.

I'm getting some good code starting points, and talking the idea through step by step with a chatbot is really helping me clarify what i need to do, but I've still got API docs open for the libraries it uses because it likes to make up functions, including the core one on which the project logic hinges. (But that's ok, because now I know I just need to write a function that works that way and i can do that).

Pretty cool and helpful! And I can imagine it getting better with GPT-4 or code-specific tooling. But it's generating value on the order of like.. many other SaaS offerings that have come onto the scene that try to ease pain points in coding workflows. Versus value of the sort that upends society and my entire way of life. A great new tool that I should learn about to make rote bits of my activities faster and easier, a story that's a bit more familiar in tech than some of the more breathless stories about AI make it sound.

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#42

I can’t find the link to the paper right now, but after reading about how LLMs perform better with task breakdowns, I vastly improved my integrations by having ChatGPT generate prompts that decompose a general task into a series of tasks based on a sample input and output. I haven’t needed to make a self-refining system (one or two rounds of task decomposition and refinement resulted in the expected result for all in…

Will you share examples for prompts that “vastly improved” your integrations?

The prompts are just all general NLP stuff, but with the addition of a series of tasks, generated by ChatGPT. For example, you start with a prompt like “You are an AI assistant capable of classifying text into one of four categories, A, B, C, D” and then add something like “Assume as input X with expected result Y? How would you accomplish this? Break it down into a detailed series of tasks.” ChatGPT will then decompose the general task into the detailed steps that you can review and tweak as needed. Then, you just restructure the prompt like “ You are an AI assistant capable of classifying text into one of four categories, A, B, C, D using a series of tasks. For example, if provided input X, you would [series of tasks provided provided by ChatGPT] and return output Y. Now, classify the following text in the same manner: [new input]”

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#43
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see people saying things like this but I have yet to see anyone show data for a non-trivial workflow with human-level accuracy over a wide range of inputs, without a human in the loop.

How is reinforcement learning without a single human in the loop not non-trivial?

What is the accuracy of the resulting model? Over what range of inputs?

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#44
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, a majority at OpenAI believes GPT5 will achieve AGI, depending on how you define it, according to Sam Altman.

Did he actually say this? Do you have a source?

He mentioned it on a recent Lex Friedman interview on YouTube.

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#45
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is reinforcement learning without a single human in the loop not non-trivial?

What is the accuracy of the resulting model? Over what range of inputs?

https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/latest/?group=core_scenarios

Anthropic-LM v4-s3 (52B) is the model in question.

rlaif doesn't seem to be any less effective given the size of the model.

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#46
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, a majority at OpenAI believes GPT5 will achieve AGI, depending on how you define it, according to Sam Altman.

And I'm sure him saying that has nothing to do with marketing

Totally good point and fair to be critical here. He is the CEO after all.

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#47
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the accuracy of the resulting model? Over what range of inputs?

https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/latest/?group=core_scenarios Anthropic-LM v4-s3 (52B) is the model in question. rlaif doesn't seem to be any less effective given the size of the model.

So base model+RLLLMF performs as well as base model+RLHF. That could mean a lot of things - it could mean the base model puts a ceiling on the total possible accuracy, so having human-level performance at the RL step doesn't matter as much. And looking at the scores on the individual tests that make up the composite accuracy metric, that looks probable.

Re: Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers

#49
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see people saying things like this but I have yet to see anyone show data for a non-trivial workflow with human-level accuracy over a wide range of inputs, without a human in the loop.

LLMs are having a moment in 2023 like self driving cars were having in 2015. Some really cool demos following a lot of hard work, too much hyperbolic speculation that mass real-world job-destroying deployments are right around the corner, not enough appreciation of how few commercial applications are ok with 99% (or even 99.9%) accurate solutions. Real value being created, but still requiring lots of human ingenuity…

>As a decent first-order metric - follow the ratio of companies getting money for using LLMs to do something, to companies getting money for providing LLMs and associated tooling to others. The bigger that ratio gets, the more real world impact LLMs are having.

This is a bad measure because the cost to specialize an LLM for a particular domain is so low, and the initial investment required to have the infrastructure so high, that it's going to lead to a radical centralization of technology. You will have maybe 5 companies crunching the entire world's data globally.

Post reply on HN