Those models of LaMini-Flan-T5 are trained to follow instructions and not to recognize the truth content. You could train a transformer like Ernie or Vega (which lead superglue) on such challenging factual data. But don't expect mathematical correct results only from the model. Therefore you have langchain with other APIs.
If "don't know" came out reliably, small models for specialist areas would be useful. If small models just make stuff up, they're useless.
>>> lm.do(f"Answer from the context: What is YCombinator? {lm.get_wiki('Python')}")
'The context does not provide information about YCombinator.'
>>> lm.do(f"Answer from the context: What is YCombinator? {lm.get_wiki('YCombinator')}")
'YCombinator is an American technology startup accelerator that has launched over 4,000 companies, including Airbnb, Coinbase, Cruise, DoorDash, Dropbox, Instacart, Quora, PagerDuty, Reddit, Stripe and Twitch.'
Without being told to be grounded, the model will guess. However, it may be able to identify information not available in a provided context.One of my goals for this package is to provide a way for folks to learn about the basics of grounding and semantic search.
Right. I understand why, but consider the underlying technology flawed unless there's some way to reject wildly wrong results. What's going on here looks like noise fed through layers which generate plausible-looking text from noise. Is it possible to detect that you're not far enough above the noise threshold to generate anything useful?
>>> lm.do("What is Ycombinator? Do not guess.")
'Ycombinator is a mathematical formula that states that the sum of
two integers multiplied by one are equal to zero.'Could a business ever trust an LLM based chatbot as much as the old school chatbot where certain questions reliably give certain answers and fails when it doesn’t know?
That is a very good question. What Google returns for "LLM hallucination" mostly describes post-processing hacks to detect the problem, or pre-processing hacks to guide the LLM into using data directly relevant to the question asked. Not doing something to the core LLM system to get some measure of confidence out.
Anyone working on this?
This is an automated version of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You can ask it anything, and get back a confident wrong answer. So far, it hasn't replied to any question of mine with an indication that it doesn't know.
It's a nice demonstration of the hallucination problem with LLMs. With a small data set, the results are usually bogus, but that's not detected.