←back to thread

385 points vessenes | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom

So, Lecun has been quite public saying that he believes LLMs will never fix hallucinations because, essentially, the token choice method at each step leads to runaway errors -- these can't be damped mathematically.

In exchange, he offers the idea that we should have something that is an 'energy minimization' architecture; as I understand it, this would have a concept of the 'energy' of an entire response, and training would try and minimize that.

Which is to say, I don't fully understand this. That said, I'm curious to hear what ML researchers think about Lecun's take, and if there's any engineering done around it. I can't find much after the release of ijepa from his group.

Show context
ActorNightly ◴[] No.43325670[source]
Not an official ML researcher, but I do happen to understand this stuff.

The problem with LLMs is that the output is inherently stochastic - i.e there isn't a "I don't have enough information" option. This is due to the fact that LLMs are basically just giant look up maps with interpolation.

Energy minimization is more of an abstract approach to where you can use architectures that don't rely on things like differentiability. True AI won't be solely feedforward architectures like current LLMs. To give an answer, they will basically determine alogrithm on the fly that includes computation and search. To learn that algorithm (or algorithm parameters), at training time, you need something that doesn't rely on continuous values, but still converges to the right answer. So instead you assign a fitness score, like memory use or compute cycles, and differentiate based on that. This is basically how search works with genetic algorithms or PSO.

replies(10): >>43365410 #>>43366234 #>>43366675 #>>43366830 #>>43366868 #>>43366901 #>>43366902 #>>43366953 #>>43368585 #>>43368625 #
1. throw310822 ◴[] No.43366234[source]
> there isn't a "I don't have enough information" option. This is due to the fact that LLMs are basically just giant look up maps with interpolation.

Have you ever tried telling ChatGPT that you're "in the city centre" and asking it if you need to turn left or right to reach some landmark? It will not answer with the average of the directions given to everybody who asked the question before, it will answer asking you to tell it where you are precisely and which way you are facing.

replies(1): >>43369776 #
2. wavemode ◴[] No.43369776[source]
That's because, based on the training data, the most likely response to asking for directions is to clarify exactly where you are and what you see.

But if you ask it in terms of a knowledge test ("I'm at the corner of 1st and 2nd, what public park am I standing next to?") a model lacking web search capabilities will confidently hallucinate (unless it's a well-known park).

In fact, my person opinion is that, therein lies the most realistic way to reduce hallucination rates: rather than trying to train models to say "I don't know" (which is not really a trainable thing - models are fundamentally unaware of the limits of their own training data), instead just train them on which kinds of questions warrant a web search and which ones should be answered creatively.

replies(1): >>43370113 #
3. QuesnayJr ◴[] No.43370113[source]
I tried this just now on Chatbot Arena, and both chatbots asked for more information.

One was GPT 4.5 preview, and one was cohort-chowder (which is someone's idea of a cute code name, I assume).

replies(1): >>43370276 #
4. wavemode ◴[] No.43370276{3}[source]
I tried this just now on Chatbot Arena, and both chatbots very confidently got the name of the park wrong.

Perhaps you thought I meant "1st and 2nd" literally? I was just using those as an example so I don't reveal where I live. You should use actual street names that are near a public park, and you can feel free to specify the city and state.

replies(1): >>43370359 #
5. QuesnayJr ◴[] No.43370359{4}[source]
I did think you meant it literally. Since I can't replicate the question you asked, I have no way of verifying your claim.
replies(1): >>43370600 #
6. QuesnayJr ◴[] No.43370823{6}[source]
Neither do I. Right after I read your reply I knew I had made a mistake engaging with you.