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

LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 272 posts

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#11

Post by zacksiri »

I've been working on solving this with quite a bit of success, I'll be sharing more on this soon. It involves having 2 systems 1st system is the LLM itself and another system which acts like a 'curator' of thoughts you could say.

It dynamically swaps in / out portions of the context. This system is also not based on explicit definitions it relies on LLMs 'filling the gaps'. The system helps the llm break down problems into small tasks which then eventually aggregate into the full task.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#13

Post by neom »

MattGaiser wrote: post #6
Benjammer wrote: post #2

It's nice to see a paper that confirms what anyone who has practiced using LLM tools already knows very well, heuristically. Keeping your context clean matters, "conversations" are only a construct of product interfaces, they hurt the quality of responses from the LLM itself, and once your context is "poisoned" it will not recover, you need to start fresh with a new chat.

Yep. I regretted leaving on memory as it is poisoned my conversations with irrelevant junk.

You can go in and delete memory items

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#14

Post by Helmut10001 »

Benjammer wrote: post #2

It's nice to see a paper that confirms what anyone who has practiced using LLM tools already knows very well, heuristically. Keeping your context clean matters, "conversations" are only a construct of product interfaces, they hurt the quality of responses from the LLM itself, and once your context is "poisoned" it will not recover, you need to start fresh with a new chat.

My experiences somewhat confirm these observations, but I also had one that was different. Two weeks of debugging IPSEC issues with Gemini. Initially, I imported all the IPSEC documentation from OPNsense and pfSense into Gemini and informed it of the general context in which I was operating (in reference to 'keeping your context clean'). Then I added my initial settings for both sides (sensitive information redacted!). Afterwards, I entered a long feedback loop, posting logs and asking and answering questions.

At the end of the two weeks, I observed that: The LLM was much less likely to become distracted. Sometimes, I would dump whole forum threads or SO posts into it, when it said "this is not what we are seeing here, because of [earlier context or finding]. I eliminated all dead ends logically and informed it of this (yes, it can help with the reflection, but I had to make the decisions). In the end, I found the cause of my issues.

This somewhat confirms what some user here on HN said a few days ago. LLMs are good at compressing complex information into simple one, but not at expanding simple ideas into complex ones. As long as my input was larger than the output (either complexity or length), I was happy with the results.

I could have done this without the LLM. However, it was helpful in that it stored facts from the outset that I had either forgotten or been unable to retrieve quickly in new contexts. It also made it easier to identify time patterns in large log files, which helped me debug my site-to-site connection. I also optimized many other settings along the way, resolving not only the most problematic issue. This meant, in addition to fixing my problem, I learned quite a bit. The 'state' was only occasionally incorrect about my current parameter settings, but this was always easy to correct. This confirms what others already saw: If you know where you are going and treat it as a tool, it is helpful. However, don't try to offload decisions or let it direct you in the wrong direction.

Overall, 350k Tokens used (about 300k words). Here's a related blog post [1] with my overall path, but not directly corresponding to this specific issue. (please don't recommend wireguard; I am aware of it)

    [1]: https://du.nkel.dev/blog/2021-11-19_pfsense_opnsense_ipsec_cgnat/

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#15

Post by ranyume »

I'd like more research done on context understanding other than NIAH. I don't believe LLMs support the context length companies say they support. But I need to know this to effectively use the tools. At least for coding.

Stuff like this:

1. Do: Best practice for X model is to include at max 10k lines of code + task + CONVENTIONS.md + architecture guidance. Only queue tasks for components that are fairly decoupled from the rest of the codebase (e.g. small modules).

2. Don't: Start a project without a clearly defined architecture in this format. Don't ask for tasks that require X amount of reading hops to understand the logic.

I find it frustrating that companies release their benchmaxxing without helping developers actually use their models. It's more ironic that some people think of these AIs as employees. Employees can work with their boss about the best way to achieve things! With LLMs you don't even know how to communicate with them and as a result their output is unreliable.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#16

Post by unshavedyak »

Benjammer wrote: post #2

It's nice to see a paper that confirms what anyone who has practiced using LLM tools already knows very well, heuristically. Keeping your context clean matters, "conversations" are only a construct of product interfaces, they hurt the quality of responses from the LLM itself, and once your context is "poisoned" it will not recover, you need to start fresh with a new chat.

Has any interface implemented a .. history cleaning mechanism? Ie with every chat message focus on cleaning up dead ends in the conversation or irrelevant details. Like summation but organic for the topic at hand?

Most history would remain, it wouldn’t try to summarize exactly, just prune and organize the history relative to the conversation path?

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#17

Post by Terr_ »

Sharlin wrote: post #7

Seems like this is an aspect of their well-known overconfidence and the inability to self-reflect and recognize they have to ask for more details because their priors are too low. If you look at the output of reasoning models, it’s clear that the idea of asking for clarification very rarely occurs to them – when they’re confused, it’s just endless speculation of what the user might have meant. This, of course, has ce…

> inability to self-reflect

IMO the One Weird Trick for LLMs is recognizing that there's no real entity, and that users are being tricked into a suspended-disbelief story.

In most cases cases you're contributing text-lines for a User-character in a movie-script document, and the LLM algorithm is periodically triggered to autocomplete incomplete lines for a Chatbot character.

You can have an interview with a vampire DraculaBot, but that character can only "self-reflect" in the same shallow/fictional way that it can "thirst for blood" or "turn into a cloud of bats."

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#18

Post by nosefurhairdo »

unshavedyak wrote: post #16
Benjammer wrote: post #2

It's nice to see a paper that confirms what anyone who has practiced using LLM tools already knows very well, heuristically. Keeping your context clean matters, "conversations" are only a construct of product interfaces, they hurt the quality of responses from the LLM itself, and once your context is "poisoned" it will not recover, you need to start fresh with a new chat.

Has any interface implemented a .. history cleaning mechanism? Ie with every chat message focus on cleaning up dead ends in the conversation or irrelevant details. Like summation but organic for the topic at hand? Most history would remain, it wouldn’t try to summarize exactly, just prune and organize the history relative to the conversation path?

I've had success having a conversation about requirements, asking the model to summarize the requirements as a spec to feed into a model for implementation, then pass that spec into a fresh context. Haven't seen any UI to do this automatically but fairly trivial/natural to perform with existing tools.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#20

Post by Sharlin »

Terr_ wrote: post #17
Sharlin wrote: post #7

Seems like this is an aspect of their well-known overconfidence and the inability to self-reflect and recognize they have to ask for more details because their priors are too low. If you look at the output of reasoning models, it’s clear that the idea of asking for clarification very rarely occurs to them – when they’re confused, it’s just endless speculation of what the user might have meant. This, of course, has ce…

> inability to self-reflect IMO the One Weird Trick for LLMs is recognizing that there's no real entity, and that users are being tricked into a suspended-disbelief story. In most cases cases you're contributing text-lines for a User-character in a movie-script document, and the LLM algorithm is periodically triggered to autocomplete incomplete lines for a Chatbot character. You can have an interview with a vampire D…

This is a tired semantic argument that does not bring any insight into the discussion. A token-predictor could still be trained to predict the tokens “I’m not sure what you mean because of points x, y, and z; could you elaborate?”
Post reply on HN