Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations • Hacker News Board

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#31

Post by m463 » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 3:33 AM UTC

22c wrote: post #28

thisisauserid wrote: post #17

Am I the only one that cringes at "10x fewer?" How do I multiply positive numbers and get something smaller? Is "1/10th" or "90% less" not better arithmetic? Maybe I should have done more gooder at math but it hurts my ears (eyes).

I think it depends how you think of the initial number, I think of it as a fraction and the multiplier applies to the denominator. eg. if hallucinations occur roughly 1 in 20 prompts then 10x fewer is 1 in 200 prompts, rather than 0.1 in 20 prompts.

Isn't 1 in 200 equivalent to .1 in 20?

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#32

Post by bee_rider » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 3:39 AM UTC

jgalt212 wrote: post #3

KeyBoardG wrote: post #2

10x less is a weird way of saying 90% less, or better yet reduced to 10% from before.

so if ChatGPT hallucinates 10% of the time, their model hallucinates only 1% of the time?

No, it would be 10% - 10*90% = -890%. What is a negative hallucination? I don’t know. Maybe it summons facts into being but doesn’t believe them.

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#33

Post by Brananarchy » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 3:55 AM UTC

XCSme wrote: post #18

Doesn't this make the "AI" even less creative and more like full-text-search instead? What makes some data a "fact"? If everything is written in the training data, in the end, won't everything be treated like a fact? So the LLM will have 100% accuracy and 0% creativity.

Most advertised commercial uses of "AI" are glorified search. This seems like an improvement in that space?

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#34

Post by bryzaguy » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 4:23 AM UTC

m463 wrote: post #31

22c wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends how you think of the initial number, I think of it as a fraction and the multiplier applies to the denominator. eg. if hallucinations occur roughly 1 in 20 prompts then 10x fewer is 1 in 200 prompts, rather than 0.1 in 20 prompts.

Isn't 1 in 200 equivalent to .1 in 20?

It is. I think their point is “10x fewer” makes sense if you imagine going from a denominator of 20 to 200.

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#35

Post by sage92 » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 5:13 AM UTC

vessenes wrote: post #7

Woww, very creative and interesting idea: I understand it as: train a bunch of fact-based LoRAs to zero loss (they mention 100k different ones), then use RAG to pick the appropriate Loras for a query. So cool. The only moat I can think of for such a company would be proprietary fact loras- basically licensing a modern ai encyclopedia. Anyway, really nice idea.

They mention "tuning millions of expert adapters", not 100k

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#36

Post by sunshowers » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 5:55 AM UTC

thisisauserid wrote: post #17

Am I the only one that cringes at "10x fewer?" How do I multiply positive numbers and get something smaller? Is "1/10th" or "90% less" not better arithmetic? Maybe I should have done more gooder at math but it hurts my ears (eyes).

I one presented a p75 result of some work as "a 60% improvement" and got direct feedback that it was not a very impressive figure. However when they realized what I really meant was a "2.5x improvement" their eyes lit up.

I've asked around and people generally seem to prefer the bigger, sexier number. I don't care too much either way so I just go with the flow. Shrug.

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#37

Post by tzekid » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 6:09 AM UTC

XCSme wrote: post #23

batch12 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like compression to me

"Compressing" 500MB of data into a 70GB model.

Isn't it more like "compressing" interactions with and patterns of 500MB of data?

Like, it's not only text search but also has a degree of generalization (e.g. in labelling new documents)

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#38

Post by tzekid » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 6:11 AM UTC

youssefabdelm wrote: post #10

Hopefully someone reproduces results with code... cant find any code they shared

They are offering a product/service, so going in too much detail would be a bad business practice, no?

But true, would love to see this in OpenSource in the wild

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#39

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 6:31 AM UTC

vessenes wrote: post #7

Woww, very creative and interesting idea: I understand it as: train a bunch of fact-based LoRAs to zero loss (they mention 100k different ones), then use RAG to pick the appropriate Loras for a query. So cool. The only moat I can think of for such a company would be proprietary fact loras- basically licensing a modern ai encyclopedia. Anyway, really nice idea.

[deleted]

Re: Lamini Memory Tuning: 10x Fewer Hallucinations

#40

Post by qeternity » Fri, Jun 14, 2024, 6:34 AM UTC

sunshowers wrote: post #36

thisisauserid wrote: post #17

Am I the only one that cringes at "10x fewer?" How do I multiply positive numbers and get something smaller? Is "1/10th" or "90% less" not better arithmetic? Maybe I should have done more gooder at math but it hurts my ears (eyes).

I one presented a p75 result of some work as "a 60% improvement" and got direct feedback that it was not a very impressive figure. However when they realized what I really meant was a "2.5x improvement" their eyes lit up. I've asked around and people generally seem to prefer the bigger, sexier number. I don't care too much either way so I just go with the flow. Shrug.

Years ago A&W rolled out a “1/3 pound” burger to compete with McDonald’s quarter pounder, but it failed miserably despite being priced the same and rating higher in blind taste tests. Why? Because people perceive 1/4 to be larger than 1/3.