Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rePAN6517 t1_jc4jkbt wrote

Reply to comment by dojoteef in [R] Stanford-Alpaca 7B model (an instruction tuned version of LLaMA) performs as well as text-davinci-003 by dojoteef

Honestly I don't care if there's not complete consistency with the game world. Having it would be great, but you could do a "good enough" job with simple backstories getting prepended into the context window.

3

v_krishna t1_jc4orxw wrote

The consistent with the world type stuff could be built into the prompt engineering (e.g., tell the user about a map you have) and I think you could largely minimize hallucination but still have very realistic conversations

2

PriestOfFern t1_jc6x37m wrote

Take it from someone who spent a long time working on a davinchi support bot, it’s not that easy. It doesn’t matter how much time you spend working on the prompt, gpt will no matter what, find some way to randomly hallucinate something.

Sure it might get rid of a majority of hallucinating, but not a reasonable amount. Fine tuning might fix this (citation needed), but I haven’t played around with it enough to comfortably tell you.

2

v_krishna t1_jc7wzmx wrote

I don't doubt it. I've only been using it for workflow aids (copilot style stuff, and using it to generate unit tests to capture error handling conditions etc), and now we are piloting first generative text products but very human in the loop (customer data used to feed into a prompt but the output then feeds into an editor for a human being to proof and update before doing something with it). The amount of totally fake webinars hosted by totally fake people it has hallucinated is wild (the content and agendas and such sound great and are sensible but none of it exists!)

1

mattrobs t1_jcs3vvo wrote

Have you tried GPT4? It’s been quite resilient in my testing

1

blueSGL t1_jc5rpta wrote

could even have it regenerate the conversation prior to the vocal synt if the character fails to mention the keyword (e.g. map) in the conversation.

You know, like a percentage chance skill check. (I'm only half joking)

1