Hacker News Reader

Hm ok, but how are you mapping this, like, epistemological concept to what you are responding to re exploration/exploitation? Has exploration happened or not if it amounts to false beliefs? The whole point tradeoff doesn't seem to make sense if the person in fact can't actually successfully explore! Or even if there the possibility of that. But it is also very likely I am misunderstanding!

View on HN

A flat distribution is still a distribution, and correct exploration would have revealed that the distribution is flat. The agent appears to have gained the false belief that it has learned something and done some exploring, when in fact it has not.

c.f. Sally-Anne test: Sally thinks she knows where her toy is, we know that she doesn't, and indeed couldn't. The LLM (and humans in similar conditions) think they know what the distribution is, we know that they don't.

Really not trying to be reductive here, but it feels like all you are trying to articulate here is that the LLM was wrong in this instance about something. Is that right? Is there something more we need to understand?

> Is there something more we need to understand?

Only if you're interested in the specific failure modes that LLMs have.

That's all this story is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com