Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

amazon.science

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

#21

Post by wbobeirne »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #15
bryzaguy wrote: post #8

They would all agree raspberry has two Rs

But still refuse to answer "How many strings does a bass play with in water?" correctly, perhaps the chat monitors in the third world data entry centers will manually patch the nonsense for a more rational answer someday. lol =3

This was the first time I'd heard that gotcha question. I just threw it at Opus 5:

    None — a bass in water is a fish, and fish are notoriously bad at music.
    
    The instrument version plays four strings as standard (five and six-string basses exist for players who want to go lower or higher), and it prefers to stay dry.
Seems like a pretty good answer to me!

Re: When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

#23

Post by Frieren »

qarl wrote: post #10

While this is absolutely true - I'd hesitate to discount using similar agents for checking each other. Two agents will almost never hallucinate in the same way, regardless of their weights - and by having a second one (with a different context) check almost entirely eliminates the problem.

> and by having a second one (with a different context) check almost entirely eliminates the problem.

You solved one of the largest problems with current LLMs. How is it possible that nobody tried that before?

Because they do. There are already LLMs checking outputs of other LLMs, the bullshit answers that you see are the results of failures on that checks. If you remove all checks LLMs will create hallucinations even more often.

Re: When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

#24

Post by pessimizer »

dgellow wrote: post #12
troupo wrote: post #7

Without reading the article (doesn't matter if it's pro or contra): no, of course not. It shouldn't even be a debatable question.

I think you should have read the article first, at minimum the subheader > Discounting the opinions of LLM judges with highly correlated outputs ensures that panels of judges reflect a true diversity of perspectives.

This doesn't even make logical sense. Actual judges have highly correlated outputs. This would literally be actively sculpting the range of opinions you want to see.

It's like the idea of political districting that thinks that the aim should be to balance each district between "the two" political parties. You're not doing anything but institutionalizing two political parties and constant conflict. You're setting the range of acceptable opinions, then choosing at random between them. Even more relevantly: when both institutionalized parties have the same opinion, it's considered the correct opinion no matter how much or how little public support it has.

Re: When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

#25

Post by Joel_Mckay »

wbobeirne wrote: post #21
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But still refuse to answer "How many strings does a bass play with in water?" correctly, perhaps the chat monitors in the third world data entry centers will manually patch the nonsense for a more rational answer someday. lol =3

This was the first time I'd heard that gotcha question. I just threw it at Opus 5: None — a bass in water is a fish, and fish are notoriously bad at music. The instrument version plays four strings as standard (five and six-string basses exist for players who want to go lower or higher), and it prefers to stay dry. Seems like a pretty good answer to me!

Indeed, giving a definite answer to an ambiguous nonsense question is still incorrect.

A fish can play with as many strings as it finds, but only one when on a hook. Yet this too is an incorrect answer, as it again ignores the ambiguity in the phrasing. =3

Re: When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

#27

Post by ChrisClark »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #25
wbobeirne wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the first time I'd heard that gotcha question. I just threw it at Opus 5: None — a bass in water is a fish, and fish are notoriously bad at music. The instrument version plays four strings as standard (five and six-string basses exist for players who want to go lower or higher), and it prefers to stay dry. Seems like a pretty good answer to me!

Indeed, giving a definite answer to an ambiguous nonsense question is still incorrect. A fish can play with as many strings as it finds, but only one when on a hook. Yet this too is an incorrect answer, as it again ignores the ambiguity in the phrasing. =3

How do you know the fish is playing? Is he happy, enjoying it? =3

Re: When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

#28

Post by Joel_Mckay »

ChrisClark wrote: post #27
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, giving a definite answer to an ambiguous nonsense question is still incorrect. A fish can play with as many strings as it finds, but only one when on a hook. Yet this too is an incorrect answer, as it again ignores the ambiguity in the phrasing. =3

How do you know the fish is playing? Is he happy, enjoying it? =3

I agree, part of the ambiguity is also unfairly projecting our own subjective experience onto hapless creatures. =3
Post reply on HN