Live data from Hacker News

LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

arxiv.org

21–30 of 272 posts

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#21

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 mean, you could build this, but it would just be a feature on top of a product abstraction of a "conversation".

Each time you press enter, you are spinning up a new instance of the LLM and passing in the entire previous chat text plus your new message, and asking it to predict the next tokens. It does this iteratively until the model produces a token, and then it returns the text to you and the PRODUCT parses it back into separate chat messages and displays it in your UI.

What you are asking the PRODUCT to now do is to edit your and its chat messages in the history of the chat, and then send that as the new history with your latest message. This is the only way to clean the context because the context is nothing more than your messages and its previous responses, plus anything that tools have pulled in. I think it would be sort of a weird feature to add to a chat bot to have the chat bot, each time you send a new message, go back through the entire history of your chat and just start editing the messages to prune out details. You would scroll up and see a different conversation, it would be confusing.

IMO, this is just part of prompt engineering skills to keep your context clean or know how to "clean" it by branching/summarizing conversations.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#22
post #20
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?”

It means if you want something resembling a self-introspective theory of mind, you need to arrange the overall document to cohere to documents where such things are/appear-to-be happening.

This leads us to new questions: How can we characterize and identify real-world documents which fit? How can we determine what features may be significant, and which of those can be easily transplanted to our use-case?

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#23

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 problem…

would be great to get more info on what you’re building - seems interesting!

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#24
i’ve see deepseek-coder local get into an infinite loop generating the same line over and over. which i assume without evidence is some sort of feedback from the generated line back into the generation process. so kind of getting lost in thought and going off topic from the simple .h api that my prompt asked for.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#25

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!…

That's some impressive prompt engineering skills to keep it on track for that long, nice work! I'll have to try out some longer-form chats with Gemini and see what I get.

I totally agree that LLMs are great at compressing information; I've set up the docs feature in Cursor to index several entire large documentation websites for major libraries and it's able to distill relevant information very quickly.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#26
post #23

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 problem…

would be great to get more info on what you’re building - seems interesting!

I publish my findings on my youtube channel and my blog, you're welcome to have a look. Both links are in my profile.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#27

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.

Agreed poisoned is a good term. I’d like to see “version control” for conversations via the API and UI that lets you rollback to a previous place or clone from that spot into a new conversation. Even a typo or having to clarify a previous message skews the probabilities of future responses due to the accident.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#28

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.

Agreed poisoned is a good term. I’d like to see “version control” for conversations via the API and UI that lets you rollback to a previous place or clone from that spot into a new conversation. Even a typo or having to clarify a previous message skews the probabilities of future responses due to the accident.

"Forking" or "branching" (probably better received outside of SWEs) a conversation really ought to be a first class feature of ChatGPT et Al.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#29
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed poisoned is a good term. I’d like to see “version control” for conversations via the API and UI that lets you rollback to a previous place or clone from that spot into a new conversation. Even a typo or having to clarify a previous message skews the probabilities of future responses due to the accident.

"Forking" or "branching" (probably better received outside of SWEs) a conversation really ought to be a first class feature of ChatGPT et Al.

It is in Google Gemini, which I really hate to say - but I've been using a lot more than GPT. I reckon I'll be cancelling my Pro if Gemini stays with this lead for my everyday workflows.

Re: LLMs get lost in multi-turn conversation

#30
post #3

Humans also often get lost in multi-turn conversation. I have experienced that in person many, many times. Jumps in context that seem easy for one person to follow, but very hard for others. So, assuming the paper is legit (arxiv, you never know...), its more like something that could be improved than a difference from human beings.

Subjectively the "getting lost" feels totally different than human conversations. Once there is something bad in the context it seems almost impossible to get back on track. All subsequent responses become get a lot worse and it starts contradicting itself. It is possible that with more training this problem can be improved, but what is interesting to me isn't it's worse than humans in this way but that this sort of…

Contradictions are normal. Humans make them all the time. They're even easy to induce, due to the simplistic nature of our communication (lots of ambiguities, semantic disputes, etc).

I don't see how that's a problem.

Subjectivity is part of human communication.

Post reply on HN