• gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    If we had that, LLMs could just improve themselves directly, bypassing any need for prompt engineering in the first place.

    Yep, exactly, and it’s been studied and put in to practice effectively already.

    Prompt tuning is not the only way to fine tune the output of an LLM, and since the goal for most is going to be to make them usable by anyone, that’s going to be the least desirable route.

    • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I know LLMs are used to grade LLMs. That isn’t solving the problem, it’s just better than nothing because there are no alternatives. There aren’t enough humans willing to endlessly sit and grade LLM responses.

      • realharo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yes there are, in addition to the thumbs up/down buttons that most people don’t use, you can also score based on metrics like “did the person try to rephrase the same question again?” (indication of a bad response), etc. from data gathered during actual use (which ChatGPT does use for training).

        • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Firstly, I’m willing to bet only a minority of users regularly use those buttons. Secondly, you’re talking about the most popular LLM(s) out there. What about all the other LLMs almost nobody is using but are still being developed/researched? Where do they find humans willing to sit and rate all the garbage their LLM puts out?