>...and that's why so many people are confused about what's going on with LLMs: sloppy, ambiguous use of language.
There is a difference between explanation by metaphor and lack of precision. If you think someone is implying something literal when they might be using a metaphor you can always ask for clarification. I know plenty of people that are utterly precise in their use in their language which leads them to being widely misunderstood because they think a weak precise signal is received as clearly as a strong imprecise signal. They usually think the failure in communication is in the recipient but in reality they are just accurately using the wrong protocol.
>Do you understand the distinction I'm making here?
I believe I do, and it is precisely this distinction that the researches showed. By teaching a model to say "I don't know" for some information that they knew the model did not know the answer to, the model learned to respond "I don't know" for things that it did not know that it was not explicitly taught to respond with "I don't know". For it to acquire that ability to generalise to new cases the model has to have already had an internal representation of "That information is not available"
I'm not sure where you think a model converting its internal representation of not knowing something into words is distinct from a human converting its internal representation of not knowing into words.
When fine tuning directs a model to profess lack of knowledge, usually they will not give the same specific "I don't know" text as a way to express that it does not not know because they want the want to bind the concept "lack of knowledge" to the concept of "communicate that I do not know" rather than any particular word phrase. Giving it many ways to say "I don't know" builds that binding rather than the crude "if X then emit Y" that you imagine it to be.
There is a difference between explanation by metaphor and lack of precision. If you think someone is implying something literal when they might be using a metaphor you can always ask for clarification. I know plenty of people that are utterly precise in their use in their language which leads them to being widely misunderstood because they think a weak precise signal is received as clearly as a strong imprecise signal. They usually think the failure in communication is in the recipient but in reality they are just accurately using the wrong protocol.
>Do you understand the distinction I'm making here? I believe I do, and it is precisely this distinction that the researches showed. By teaching a model to say "I don't know" for some information that they knew the model did not know the answer to, the model learned to respond "I don't know" for things that it did not know that it was not explicitly taught to respond with "I don't know". For it to acquire that ability to generalise to new cases the model has to have already had an internal representation of "That information is not available"
I'm not sure where you think a model converting its internal representation of not knowing something into words is distinct from a human converting its internal representation of not knowing into words.
When fine tuning directs a model to profess lack of knowledge, usually they will not give the same specific "I don't know" text as a way to express that it does not not know because they want the want to bind the concept "lack of knowledge" to the concept of "communicate that I do not know" rather than any particular word phrase. Giving it many ways to say "I don't know" builds that binding rather than the crude "if X then emit Y" that you imagine it to be.