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

Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 253 posts

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#211

Post by keepamovin »

dudeinhawaii wrote: post #190

I see a lot of threads pitting models against each other (or whole swarms of them) in the hope that "wisdom of crowds" will magically appear. After a stack of experiments of my own—and after watching the recent ASU/Microsoft-Research work [1].. I've landed on a simpler takeaway: An LLM is a terrible verifier of another LLM. Subbarao Kambhampati's "(How) Do LLMs Reason/Plan?" talk shows GPT-4 confidently producing pro…

I believe, what the smart AI company is trying to do, right now, in secret, is to use US, the humans, and our replies to the AIs, as training for the next generation of self-verifying-models. :)

Training on corpus data gets you to 1 order of magnitude. But training on interactive data where you can observe and adapt to the OODA-loop? So much more powerful.

At least, that's what I'd be doing if I were doing AI :)

But I just do BrowserBox

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#212

Post by zurfer »

dudeinhawaii wrote: post #190

I see a lot of threads pitting models against each other (or whole swarms of them) in the hope that "wisdom of crowds" will magically appear. After a stack of experiments of my own—and after watching the recent ASU/Microsoft-Research work [1].. I've landed on a simpler takeaway: An LLM is a terrible verifier of another LLM. Subbarao Kambhampati's "(How) Do LLMs Reason/Plan?" talk shows GPT-4 confidently producing pro…

Your references show me that it is absolutely task depended. In many domains it's true that "criticizing is easier than creating".

The best example might be books and movies, where it's trivial to say the characters were shallow, but it's surprisingly hard to create deeply interesting characters.

In Software Engineering, there are similar dynamics. An LLM with a security vuln finding prompt will be able to point out places, where the generated code might be insecure.

But if you want another LLM to find a reasoning mistake in a mathematical proof it basically has to do all the reasoning work as well. In which case I doubt there will be any significant performance gains.

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#213

Post by buu700 »

MoonGhost wrote: post #109
mikepurvis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In doing some DevOps-y type tasks recently (ansible, packer, docker, baking images with guestfish), I've found it very frustrating how much ChatGPT will confidently tell me to use flags on tools that don't exist, or hallicinate completely non-existent functions or behaviours. And then when I spend time trying what it suggests only to hit a wall and come back like wtf mate it breezily goes "oh yes so you're right, goo…

You can't get more info from LLMs than it actually holds. Like Anthropic pointed if LLMs knows the name but has no other info it starts hallucinating. The same probably happens here. LLM knows there must be a flag but can't remember all of them. Likely short reminder in prompt will help. (or search web for GPT) Just my $0.02.

The fact that you can more info from an LLM than it holds is actually a pithy description of this whole challenge.

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#215

Post by consumer451 »

casenmgreen wrote: post #210
consumer451 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To push back on this, a somewhat recent Linus Torvalds ~quote: "I don't think that 'just predicting the next word' is the insult that people think it is, it's mostly what we all do." If we break our lives down into the different types of reasoning, and what we mostly do day-to-day, this rings very true to me. I currently believe that our brains generally operate as very efficient inference machines. Sometimes we slow…

I may be wrong, but it seems to me this also is a case of improper use of words. Those LLMs neither agree nor disagree. They do not understand. They produce output , and we read that output and we ourselves consider the output to be something, or something else. All an LLM does is produce output. There's no conceptual understanding behind it, and so there is no agreement, or disagreement.

> All an LLM does is produce output. There's no conceptual understanding behind it, and so there is no agreement, or disagreement.

I think that I agree. However, even on HN, what percentage of human comments are simply some really basic inference, aka output/"reddit"/etc... and those are humans.

I am not trying to elevate LLMs to some form of higher intelligence, my only point is that most of the time, we are not all that much better. Even the 0.000001% best of us fall into these habits sometimes. [0]

I currently believe that modern LLM architecture will likely not lead to AGI/ASI. However, even without that, they could do a lot.

I could also be very wrong.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#217

Post by mortarion »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #112

> "I made my AI think" ... utterly moronic. They don't “think” ... not even in the most autistic sense of the word. They can generate solutions by combining existing knowledge in unique ways. But they don't “think”.

That's exactly what us humans do when we think about stuff. We combine memories and knowledge in unique ways, then we usually go ask someone else to give input on it.

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#218

Post by Havoc »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #125

How far is this going to go? Are we going to have a team of AI agents that runs a scrum team and meets for stand ups every couple of hours? Are we going to replicate government bureaucracy with agents all debating topics all day long to find the best opinion?

Seems likely to me. As long as adding more appears to help people will do it

Presumably there is some point where it levels out. And no doubt there will be a committee of AIs to determine said point.

Cause we wouldn’t want to boil the ocean…

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#219

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #170
odo1242 wrote: post #88

Something I do sometimes is: - Have an AI chat model come up with an answer to a problem. - Have it write a report discussing the details of the problem and why it's answer is correct, directed at a person or AI model who has no knowledge of the initial problem or technical field. - Have a second AI model with no knowledge of the problem grade the report, and write it's own report either (a) asking for clarification…

Ah, now we know why Spain was out of electricity yesterday.

Here I was thinking cryptocurrency pre-heated the grids (and GPU manufacturing) for us already.

Re: Chain of Recursive Thoughts: Make AI think harder by making it argue with itself

#220

Post by [deleted] »

dttze wrote: post #111
consumer451 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure that you can make that absolute statement. Reasoning is subdivided into types, and one of those types is inductive reasoning. > Inductive reasoning refers to a variety of methods of reasoning in which the conclusion of an argument is supported not with deductive certainty, but with some degree of probability. Unlike deductive reasoning (such as mathematical induction), where the conclusion is certain, g…

Markov chains have done that for ages. They aren't AI. This is just that scaled up. Just because it can infer a token doesn't mean it can infer a conclusion to an argument.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN