News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Detecting when LLMs are uncertain by badsandwitch on Friday October 25, 2024 @06:52PM (#41950670)
Has anyone tried to see what the output looks like if the model is never allowed to be uncertain?

For example, whenever certainty drops below a threshold the sampler backtracks and chooses different tokens. Such that at the end every single token had an above threshold certainty.

I doubt it would entirely eliminate undesirable outputs, but it would be interesting.

Re:Detecting when LLMs are uncertain by eddd-ddde on Friday October 25, 2024 @07:26PM (#41950968)
Couldn't that just, never get an answer?

Or maybe just says "i don't know" with full certainty.

Re:Detecting when LLMs are uncertain by zbentley on Friday October 25, 2024 @07:31PM (#41951020)
That would be extremely useful in some domains.
Re:Detecting when LLMs are uncertain by mumblemumble on Friday October 25, 2024 @07:49PM (#41951186)
Perhaps only if you can also be very certain that the output is correct whenever the logprobs don't trigger the filter.

If that's not the case then it might just trigger bad risk compensation behavior in the model's human operators.

Re:Detecting when LLMs are uncertain by Jerrrrrrry on Saturday October 26, 2024 @12:49AM (#41952628)
You used to get purely determinant near-quotes, but still affected by floating point inaccuracies.