| ▲ | enraged_camel 4 hours ago |
| What do you mean by this? |
|
| ▲ | Gander5739 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If the output can't be trusted, and you use another llm whose output can't be trusted to check the untrusted output of the first llm, then you're back where you started. |
| |
| ▲ | duncangh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah this seems to me similar to how the mortgage backed security risk concentration occurred leading up to the global financial crisis. Whereby the risk from exposure to low grade / risky single mortgages was eliminated via diversification but the diversification was simply packaging all of the risky MBS’s together and in no way diversified or de-risked the entire portfolio | | |
| ▲ | cromka an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't see it. To me it's like having e.g. 3 drunk PhDs arguing between each other to settle on truthful answers to questions. | | |
| ▲ | DrewADesign 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But the problem with LLMs is that they get the facts wrong. PhDs are PhDs because they’d look it up in an authoritative source, or actually find out through research and experimentation. The whole point is that facts aren’t a matter of opinion. The only people that argue over documented, findable facts are idiots that nobody should listen to. |
| |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm hoping that the Big Horrible Realization comes sooner rather than later, when we have less collective damage and pain riding on it. (Plus I'd feel personally vindicated.) |
| |
| ▲ | daishi55 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not really. Take hallucinations for example. If they are 1 in 100 (actually they are much rarer, but for the sake of argument), then the chances that 2 LLMs or even just 2 runs of the same LLM have the same hallucination is, well, a lot less than 1 in 100. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That rests on a false-assumption that the errors are statistically independent events, and have nothing to do with the shared nature of the judges. | | |
| ▲ | daishi55 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Are there any reproducible hallucinations on any of the currently available OAI/Anthropic models? I’m not aware of any. And even if they are related - if Opus 4.8 always has a 1:100 chance of a specific hallucination - then running the same model twice does indeed dramatically reduce the odds of an error in the final output. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | If simply running things thrice-over was enough to stop "hallucinations" (and not incur other problems) we wouldn't be here talking about it today, it'd have been "solved" months or years ago. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | furyofantares 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Turtles all the way down" is a phrase of, I think, unknown origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down) about infinite regress or trying to patch up some bad theory by appealing to itself. Someone claims
that what holds the Earth in place is that it sits atop a giant turtle, and a skeptic asks what holds the turtle up, and the response is that it's turtles all the way down. Personally I think this is a bad characterization of using LLMs to fix up LLMs because while you can never guarantee results this way (as the quoted line claims here, which is worthy of criticism), it is, in practice, useful to use LLMs on top of LLMs. And there's no infinite regress. Auto-mode in Claude Code, for example, seems to me like it's been successful at making the system more safe than --dangerously-bypass-permissions without prompting the user for permissions constantly. |
| |
| ▲ | dozerly 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are certainly uses where it’s good enough, but you can never be 100% certain of correctness in the way that people claim you can by stacking N layers of these models. What triggered my response was the “just review the output with another LLM and it’s perfectly correct” |
|
|
| ▲ | phatskat 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I read it as “if your LLM is being checked by another LLM, well then you need another LLM to check the checker. And can you really trust _that_ LLM? Probably should have an LLM to check the third one, and…” |
|
| ▲ | tclancy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s a reference to Bernard Shaw, who once said that if we ever created a truly artificial mind it would be inside a turtle’s shell. Sturgill Simpson covered the track on his seminal work, Xeno’s Paradox. |
| |
| ▲ | eyepea2007 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | an LLM tells me there is no evidence that Bernard Shaw ever said any such thing :) | | |
|
|
| ▲ | lordnacho 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
