https://archive.ph/XKG86
Because they were trained on internet arguments, and nobody on the internet has ever admitted they don't know something
Because they were trained on internet arguments, and nobody on the internet has ever admitted they don't know something
"While I aim to be accurate in my responses [...] I think it's best for me to acknowledge that I don't have reliable information about [...] marital status rather than make a potentially incorrect statement."
Difficult to have an exciting discussion about such an answer, so I assume most participants on this internet forum will focus on other LLMs ;)
If it did say "I don't know", it still wouldn't know when it should. Instead, we would get confident expressions of uncertainty; and we would label them hallucinations, too.
This actually happens, just not very often.
There's just comparatively not much reference material for someone correctly self-assessing that they don't know.
Or people’s questions were left unanswered (because nobody knew), and there was nothing for the LLM to learn there.
So I guess LLMs can’t learn the absence of answers?
[Edit] The article here also mentions a paper [2] that comes up with the idea of an uncertainty token. So here the incorporation of uncertainty is already baked in at pre-training.[/Edit]
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.21783 [2] https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Wc0vlQuoLb
What’s with your tone btw? RTFA? To me that feels quite unwarranted and in violation of the site guidelines.
Chill out, eh?
Ah, I don't know.