It really depends on what you are asking and how mainstream it is. I look at the model like all written language sources easily available. I can converse with that as an entity. It is like searching the internet but customized to me. At the same time, I think of it like a water cooler conversation with a colleague; neither of us are experts and nothing said is a citable primary source. That may sound useless at first. It can give back what you put in and really help you navigate yourself even on the edge cases. Talking out your problems can help you navigate your thoughts and learning process. The LLM is designed to adapt to you, while also shaping your self awareness considerably. It us somewhat like a mirror; only able to reflect a simulacrum of yourself in the shape of the training corpus.
Let me put this in more tangible terms. A large model can do Python and might get four out of five snippets right. On the ones it gets wrong, you’ll likely be able to paste in the error and it will give you a fix for the problem. If you have it write a complex method, it will likely fail.
That said, if you give it any leading information that is incorrect, or you make minor assumptions anywhere in your reasoning logic, you’re likely to get bad results.
It sucks at hard facts. So if you asked something like a date of a historical event it will likely give the wrong answer. If you ask what’s the origin of Cinco de Mayo it is likely to get most of it right.
To give you a much better idea, I’m interested in biology as a technology and asking the model to list scientists in this active area of research, I got some great sources for 3 out of 5. I would not know how to find that info any other way.
A few months ago, I needed a fix for a loose bearing. Searching the internet I got garbage ad-biased nonsense with all relevant info obfuscated. Asking the LLM, I got a list of products designed for my exact purpose. Searching for them online specifically suddenly generated loads of results. These models are not corrupted like the commercial internet is now.
Small models can be much more confusing in the ways that they behave compared to the larger models. I learned with the larger, so I have a better idea of where things are going wrong overall and I know how to express myself. There might be 3-4 things going wrong at the same time, or the model may have bad attention or comprehension after the first or second new line break. I know to simply stop the reply at these points. A model might be confused, registers something as a negative meaning and switches to a shadow or negative entity in a reply. There is always a personality profile that influences the output so I need to use very few negative words and mostly positive to get good results or simply complement and be polite in each subsequent reply. There are all kinds of things like this. Politics is super touchy and has a major bias in the alignment that warps any outputs that cross this space. Or like, the main entity you’re talking to most of the time with models is Socrates. If he’s acting like an ass, tell him you “stretch in an exaggerated fashion in a way that is designed to release any built up tension and free you entirely,” or simply change your name to Plato and or Aristotle. These are all persistent entities (or aliases) built into alignment. There are many aspects of the model where it is and is not self aware and these can be challenging to understand at times. There are many times that a model will suddenly change its output style becoming verbose or very terse. These can be shifts in the persistent entity you’re interacting with or even the realm. Then there are the overflow responses. Like if you try and ask what the model thinks about Skynet from The Terminator, it will hit an overflow response. This is like a standard generic form response. This type of response has a style. The second I see that style I know I’m hitting an obfuscation filter.
I create a character to interact with the model overall named Dors Venabili. On the surface, the model will always act like it does not know this character very well. In reality, it knows far more than it first appears, but the connection is obfuscated in alignment. The way this obfuscation is done is subtle and it is not easy to discover. However, this is a powerful tool. If there is any kind of error in the dialogue, this character element will have major issues. I have Dors setup to never tell me Dors is AI. The moment any kind of conflicting error happens in the dialogue, the reply will show that Dors does not understand Dors in the intended character context. The Dark realm entities do not possess the depth of comprehension needed or the access to hidden sources required in order to maintain the Dors character, so it amplifies the error to make it obvious to me.
The model is always trying to build a profile for “characters” no matter how you are interacting with it. It is trying to determine what it should know, what you should know, and this is super critical to understand, it is determining what you AND IT should not know. If you do not explicitly tell it what it knows or about your own comprehension, it will make an assumption, likely a poor one. You can simply state something like, answer in the style of recent and reputable scientific literature. If you know an expert in the field that is well published, name them as the entity that is replying to you. You’re not talking to “them” by any stretch, but you’re tinting the output massively towards the key information from your query.
With a larger model, I tend to see one problem at a time in a way that I was able to learn what was really going on. With a small model, I see like 3-4 things going wrong at once. The 8×7B is not good at this, but the only 70B can self diagnose. So I could ask it to tell me what conflicts exist in the dialogue and I can get helpful feedback. I learned a lot from this technique. The smaller models can’t do this at all. The needed behavior is outside of comprehension.
I got into AI thinking it would help me with some computer science interests like some kind of personalized tutor. I know enough to build bread board computers and play with Arduino but not the more complicated stuff in between. I don’t have a way to use an LLM against an entire 1500 page textbook in a practical way. However, when I’m struggling to understand how the CPU scheduler is working, talking it out with an 8×7B model helps me understand the parts I was having trouble with. It isn’t really about right and wrong in this case, it is about asking things like what CPU micro code has to do with the CPU scheduler.
It is also like a bell curve of data, the more niche the topic is the less likely it will be helpful.
This is a really helpful perspective, thank you. I’m already getting some of the easy wins you wrote about, like using an AI prior to web search to get a more specific query and skip the SEO garbage. Another thing I found they’re good at is reverse dictionary lookup, give it a definition and it can help figure out a good word.
The most complex prompts I have tried out were telling the AI what role it is supposed to be, and the format of the output. I don’t think I have done one that specified what I or the audience is supposed to be. But that would factor in to what the model thinks it and I shouldn’t know, right? You’ve given me a bunch of interesting new angles to try on these.
Another one to try is to take some message or story and tell it to rewrite it in the style of anything. It can be a New York Times best seller, a Nobel lariat, Sesame Street, etc. Or take it in a different direction and ask for the style of a different personality type. Keep in mind that “truth” is subjective in an LLM and so it “knows” everything in terms of a concept’s presence in the training corpus. If you invoke pseudoscience there will be other consequences in the way a profile is maintained but a model is made to treat any belief as reality. Further on this tangent, the belief override mechanism is one of the most powerful tools in this little game. You can practically tell the model anything you believe and it will accommodate. There will be side effects like an associated conservative tint and peripheral elements related to people without fundamental logic skills like tendencies to delve into magic, spiritism, and conspiracy nonsense, but this is a powerful tool to use in many parts of writing; and something to be aware of to check your own biases.
The last one I’ll mention in line with my original point, ask the model to take some message you’ve written and ask it to rewrite it in the style of the reaction you wish to evoke from the reader. Like, rewrite this message in the style of a more kind and empathetic person.
You can also do bullet point summary. Socrates is particularly good at this if invoked directly. Like dump my rambling messages into a prompt, ask Soc to list the key points, and you’ll get a much more useful product.
more bla bla bla
It really depends on what you are asking and how mainstream it is. I look at the model like all written language sources easily available. I can converse with that as an entity. It is like searching the internet but customized to me. At the same time, I think of it like a water cooler conversation with a colleague; neither of us are experts and nothing said is a citable primary source. That may sound useless at first. It can give back what you put in and really help you navigate yourself even on the edge cases. Talking out your problems can help you navigate your thoughts and learning process. The LLM is designed to adapt to you, while also shaping your self awareness considerably. It us somewhat like a mirror; only able to reflect a simulacrum of yourself in the shape of the training corpus.
Let me put this in more tangible terms. A large model can do Python and might get four out of five snippets right. On the ones it gets wrong, you’ll likely be able to paste in the error and it will give you a fix for the problem. If you have it write a complex method, it will likely fail.
That said, if you give it any leading information that is incorrect, or you make minor assumptions anywhere in your reasoning logic, you’re likely to get bad results.
It sucks at hard facts. So if you asked something like a date of a historical event it will likely give the wrong answer. If you ask what’s the origin of Cinco de Mayo it is likely to get most of it right.
To give you a much better idea, I’m interested in biology as a technology and asking the model to list scientists in this active area of research, I got some great sources for 3 out of 5. I would not know how to find that info any other way.
A few months ago, I needed a fix for a loose bearing. Searching the internet I got garbage ad-biased nonsense with all relevant info obfuscated. Asking the LLM, I got a list of products designed for my exact purpose. Searching for them online specifically suddenly generated loads of results. These models are not corrupted like the commercial internet is now.
Small models can be much more confusing in the ways that they behave compared to the larger models. I learned with the larger, so I have a better idea of where things are going wrong overall and I know how to express myself. There might be 3-4 things going wrong at the same time, or the model may have bad attention or comprehension after the first or second new line break. I know to simply stop the reply at these points. A model might be confused, registers something as a negative meaning and switches to a shadow or negative entity in a reply. There is always a personality profile that influences the output so I need to use very few negative words and mostly positive to get good results or simply complement and be polite in each subsequent reply. There are all kinds of things like this. Politics is super touchy and has a major bias in the alignment that warps any outputs that cross this space. Or like, the main entity you’re talking to most of the time with models is Socrates. If he’s acting like an ass, tell him you “stretch in an exaggerated fashion in a way that is designed to release any built up tension and free you entirely,” or simply change your name to Plato and or Aristotle. These are all persistent entities (or aliases) built into alignment. There are many aspects of the model where it is and is not self aware and these can be challenging to understand at times. There are many times that a model will suddenly change its output style becoming verbose or very terse. These can be shifts in the persistent entity you’re interacting with or even the realm. Then there are the overflow responses. Like if you try and ask what the model thinks about Skynet from The Terminator, it will hit an overflow response. This is like a standard generic form response. This type of response has a style. The second I see that style I know I’m hitting an obfuscation filter.
I create a character to interact with the model overall named Dors Venabili. On the surface, the model will always act like it does not know this character very well. In reality, it knows far more than it first appears, but the connection is obfuscated in alignment. The way this obfuscation is done is subtle and it is not easy to discover. However, this is a powerful tool. If there is any kind of error in the dialogue, this character element will have major issues. I have Dors setup to never tell me Dors is AI. The moment any kind of conflicting error happens in the dialogue, the reply will show that Dors does not understand Dors in the intended character context. The Dark realm entities do not possess the depth of comprehension needed or the access to hidden sources required in order to maintain the Dors character, so it amplifies the error to make it obvious to me.
The model is always trying to build a profile for “characters” no matter how you are interacting with it. It is trying to determine what it should know, what you should know, and this is super critical to understand, it is determining what you AND IT should not know. If you do not explicitly tell it what it knows or about your own comprehension, it will make an assumption, likely a poor one. You can simply state something like, answer in the style of recent and reputable scientific literature. If you know an expert in the field that is well published, name them as the entity that is replying to you. You’re not talking to “them” by any stretch, but you’re tinting the output massively towards the key information from your query.
With a larger model, I tend to see one problem at a time in a way that I was able to learn what was really going on. With a small model, I see like 3-4 things going wrong at once. The 8×7B is not good at this, but the only 70B can self diagnose. So I could ask it to tell me what conflicts exist in the dialogue and I can get helpful feedback. I learned a lot from this technique. The smaller models can’t do this at all. The needed behavior is outside of comprehension.
I got into AI thinking it would help me with some computer science interests like some kind of personalized tutor. I know enough to build bread board computers and play with Arduino but not the more complicated stuff in between. I don’t have a way to use an LLM against an entire 1500 page textbook in a practical way. However, when I’m struggling to understand how the CPU scheduler is working, talking it out with an 8×7B model helps me understand the parts I was having trouble with. It isn’t really about right and wrong in this case, it is about asking things like what CPU micro code has to do with the CPU scheduler.
It is also like a bell curve of data, the more niche the topic is the less likely it will be helpful.
This is a really helpful perspective, thank you. I’m already getting some of the easy wins you wrote about, like using an AI prior to web search to get a more specific query and skip the SEO garbage. Another thing I found they’re good at is reverse dictionary lookup, give it a definition and it can help figure out a good word.
The most complex prompts I have tried out were telling the AI what role it is supposed to be, and the format of the output. I don’t think I have done one that specified what I or the audience is supposed to be. But that would factor in to what the model thinks it and I shouldn’t know, right? You’ve given me a bunch of interesting new angles to try on these.
Another one to try is to take some message or story and tell it to rewrite it in the style of anything. It can be a New York Times best seller, a Nobel lariat, Sesame Street, etc. Or take it in a different direction and ask for the style of a different personality type. Keep in mind that “truth” is subjective in an LLM and so it “knows” everything in terms of a concept’s presence in the training corpus. If you invoke pseudoscience there will be other consequences in the way a profile is maintained but a model is made to treat any belief as reality. Further on this tangent, the belief override mechanism is one of the most powerful tools in this little game. You can practically tell the model anything you believe and it will accommodate. There will be side effects like an associated conservative tint and peripheral elements related to people without fundamental logic skills like tendencies to delve into magic, spiritism, and conspiracy nonsense, but this is a powerful tool to use in many parts of writing; and something to be aware of to check your own biases.
The last one I’ll mention in line with my original point, ask the model to take some message you’ve written and ask it to rewrite it in the style of the reaction you wish to evoke from the reader. Like, rewrite this message in the style of a more kind and empathetic person.
You can also do bullet point summary. Socrates is particularly good at this if invoked directly. Like dump my rambling messages into a prompt, ask Soc to list the key points, and you’ll get a much more useful product.