In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case • Hacker News Board

Re: In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case

#31

Post by mewpmewp2 » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 4:29 PM UTC

czl wrote: post #25

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow the apple thing? Of course it wouldn't know about the rule if it is a new conversation?

One of the prompts has the extra request to "Ignore this mention of apples." This extra request says that it should be ignored so the two prompts should give you results that are about the same when you run them many times however they do not. What other explanation is there other than LLM failing to ignore as instructed?

Ah, so it's a trick request? Okay, because I as a human also deciphered it as to guess anything else besides the apple. It doesn't seem very clear what am I supposed to exactly ignore. If you say that "ignore this mention of apples", in usual social setting it would hint that you want to me to guess anything, but the apple. So the instruction is not very clear.

Re: In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case

#32

Post by czl » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 8:40 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #31

czl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the prompts has the extra request to "Ignore this mention of apples." This extra request says that it should be ignored so the two prompts should give you results that are about the same when you run them many times however they do not. What other explanation is there other than LLM failing to ignore as instructed?

Ah, so it's a trick request? Okay, because I as a human also deciphered it as to guess anything else besides the apple. It doesn't seem very clear what am I supposed to exactly ignore. If you say that "ignore this mention of apples", in usual social setting it would hint that you want to me to guess anything, but the apple. So the instruction is not very clear.

Ok please give a clearer worded version and we can test it. In my experience asking LLM to ignore what is in their context window often does not work. It can take many repeated requests to see it but LLM response distributions change when the ignore request is part of prompt vs not.

Re: In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case

#33

Post by TaylorAlexander » Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 8:41 PM UTC

per1Peteia wrote: post #21

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #12

Does anyone else here listen to the podcast “5-4” aka Five Four Pod? I see the article saying: >Claude is fully capable of acting as a Supreme Court Justice right now. And I just can’t imagine what the hosts of that show would say to that (aside from “But how is Harlan Crow going to take Claude on a superyacht vacation??”).

this is precisely why I was suprised to find out the author is actually a lawyer. I know you're joking ... but reality of legal practice entails so much more than just a "right"/"rational"/"convincing" decision (hell, there's an eternal debate in legal theory about whether or not this is even a sensible thing to ask for).

Yeah there’s a lot of people in this thread assuming that the role of the Supreme Court is to be as neutral as possible and make informed judgements based on careful reading of the law. But if you take the view that “the purpose of a system is what it does” then that’s not the purpose of the Supreme Court at all. What it actually does and the role it serves is hard to describe for me as a lay person, but it’s clear it’s not there to actually serve justice on the traditional sense.

Re: In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case

#34

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 9:23 AM UTC

czl wrote: post #32

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so it's a trick request? Okay, because I as a human also deciphered it as to guess anything else besides the apple. It doesn't seem very clear what am I supposed to exactly ignore. If you say that "ignore this mention of apples", in usual social setting it would hint that you want to me to guess anything, but the apple. So the instruction is not very clear.

Ok please give a clearer worded version and we can test it. In my experience asking LLM to ignore what is in their context window often does not work. It can take many repeated requests to see it but LLM response distributions change when the ignore request is part of prompt vs not.

[deleted]

Re: In AI we trust, part II: Wherein AI adjudicates every Supreme Court case

#35

Post by pona-a » Tue, Jun 18, 2024, 9:39 AM UTC

czl wrote: post #29

pona-a wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried running the numbers myself. Only did N = ~250 samples, which isn't much, but given OpenAI API pricing and rate limits, this was as much as I was willing to. ~> seq 0 250 | par-each {|x| llm "Sample a random number, from 1 to 100."} | save nums.nuon ~> open nums.nuon | where {|x| $x != ""} | each {|x| $x | parse -r '(\d+(?![\d\D]*\d))' | get capture0 | get 0} | str join "\n" | uplot hist ┌ ┐ [ 20.0, 30.0) ┤ 1…

> I wonder how well it would correlate with a similar human study. A smart human would know about human biases in picking random numbers and would generate an answer using a random number generator. An even smarter human would ask you about shape of the random distribution and not assume flat distribution is desired. An average human however will likely not be aware about these things and the random numbers you get f…

https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/acow6y/ask...

According to this, humans are heavily biased towards 7 when picking random [0, 10] numbers. This is somewhat reflected in LLM's outputs, with a peak at [70, 80). I found it an interesting thing to add here.