All of Ooker's Comments + Replies

3ChristianKl
Because it looks like you haven't explored the assumptions you make well. If I have a discussion about poker and the person who I ask something about poker has no interests to continue to talk to me about poker I have a variety of ways to increase my knowledge about poker. I might read a book about poker.  In your last question, someone told you to read the sequences. If you want to understand how discourse is seen on LessWrong that was a good suggestion.
Ooker-1-2

I see. Thanks for replying. I wonder if we move the topic to how your interest works, would that be your interest? 

Ooker10

Here is the full dialog, in case you are still interested.

  • [Bob posts a problem about data classification] 
  • Alice: You should use LLM. It especially suites your problem
  • Bob: In my understanding LLM is only strong where the context is large. If the context is small then using regex gives better result? Also, regex has advantages of high accuracy, fast, understandable and debuggable?
  • Alice: Not really. Also, regex cannot work with synonyms and it must be in form. LLM is trained on multiple data, so if you make good prompt then it's much better
  • Bob: But the n
... (read more)
Ooker10

That said, I'm now shutting down this conversation :)   I'll read any further responses, but probably won't further engage.

Thanks for your patience. Your response is by far the most useful one I have. I really appreciate that.

If you find replying a short sentence isn't much burden, can you tell why you don't want to continue this conversation? Is it because continuing it doesn't stimulate your interest as you have on it in the beginning? Can you share why?

3Dagon
I don't know that my reasons are all that legible, but some combination of: * I've now heard enough details that my curiosity about the framing of the discussion is satisfied. * I actually know quite a bit about the object-level discussion (having worked on large NLP projects, though before the dominance of LLMs), and I don't think there's much value to you or to me in trying to go deeper on a problem I'm not invested in. * My estimate of future enjoyment or education from further exploration of the topic is pretty low.  I got good value from a small time/thought investment in early conversation, and it feels like we've passed the peak of marginal enjoyment for additional effort. * I'm still a little annoyed at the incorrect and wasteful generalization at the start, when the specifics dominate the interpretation that should be used. Ok, that sounds a lot more harsh than I actually feel.  I probably should have said "I think we've explored the overall question about Alice and Bob, and that's all I was looking for in the first place."
Ooker10

They could have a valid debate about budgets (both dev and runtime costs) and precision-recall tradeoffs, and whether the problem is simple enough that it's anywhere close to true that the rules will fit in someone's head in order to be testable and debuggable.

I'm not sure what "it's anywhere close to true that the rules will fit in someone's head in order to be testable and debuggable" means. I guess you just mean if the problem is simple enough then the rule-based approach is better. Is that correct?

I'll assuming yes here. While Bob indeed doesn't mentio... (read more)

Ooker10

I see your point. I think it's time to tell the specifics. 

  • [Bob posts a problem about data classification] 
  • Alice: You should use LLM. It especially suites your problem
  • Bob: In my understanding LLM is only strong where the context is large. If the context is small then using regex gives better result? Also, regex has advantages of high accuracy, fast, understandable and debuggable?
  • Alice: Not really. Also, regex cannot work with synonyms and it must be in form. LLM is trained on multiple data, so if you make good prompt then it's much better
  • Bob: But
... (read more)
3Dagon
Oh, both of them are stuck in a false dichotomy.  The right answer is obviously a mix of both.  They could have a valid debate about budgets (both dev and runtime costs) and precision-recall tradeoffs, and long-tail utterances, and whether the problem is simple enough that it's anywhere close to true that the rules will fit in someone's head in order to be testable and debuggable.  They can talk about what parts of the problem are best addressed by what tools.  But a general discussion of "if we have only one tool, should it be a hammer or a screwdriver" is probably unhelpful. "Just try it" is probably fairly costly to do, so I understand Bob's reluctance.  He's wrong, because "try it" includes "learn enough about it to actually understand it's strengths and weaknesses".  Alice is wrong because "you're reasoning too much" is not what's happening, and trying it is not an alternative to reasoning, it's an aid to reasoning better. I don't find much use in trying to analyze whether Alice is trying to shut down the conversation, or whether Bob is confusing things that are basic enough that Alice is understandably frustrated and unable to give good advice on a practical level.  Again, specifics of the discussion matter - is this a friendly, low-stakes brainstorm, or are they teammates trying to solve a specific problem, or is it some other relationship?   That said, I'm now shutting down this conversation :)   I'll read any further responses, but probably won't further engage.
Ooker10

I guess it all comes down to this question: when Bob says T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C, or C doesn't apply to the problem, why that is the evidence for him to haven't tried it, but not the evidence that he has actually tried it? You said that:

It is very unlikely that Bob has tried T1, since he gave a very weak theoretical argument in favour of using T2 instead, rather than a much stronger and practical argument "I tried T1, and here's why it didn't help".

But I don't see how saying "T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C, C doesn't app... (read more)

2JBlack
The meaning is very different. To begin with, Bob actually starting this sentence with "In my understanding, ...". That is, Bob says that he has a mental model of how T1 works in relation to C (and A), and is specifically qualifying that this is purely Bob's mental model. Most people who have actual practical experience demonstrating that something doesn't work are more likely to say so instead of qualifying some theoretical statement with "in my understanding" and expectations under "if ... then ..." clauses. It is still possible that Bob has actually tried T1 and that he's just very bad at communicating, of course. It's also possible that Bob's stated mental model is actually correct, and T1 isn't strong when C doesn't apply. That still isn't a refutation of using technique T1, since there may be no better technique to use. So the only moderately strong argument against using T1 is Bob's second sentence, which is what I was referring to in my sentence quoted. Edit: This will be my last comment on the topic. It's especially frustrating having to talk about a communication scenario in such vague generalities due to omission of almost all of the communication-relevant information from the original post.
Ooker10

I can of course provide full detailed, but in the interest of keeping it as general as possible (or, to understand where further generalization is not possible), I want to get deeper on this before provide more specifics.

I agree that "you are reasoning badly from evidence we agree on" or "you need to both measure and reason a lot more clearly" are also reasonable interpretations of "you are reasoning too much". But isn't that the other sentence "You should try it first" makes the "you are empirically testing too little" interpretation more likely?

Can you s... (read more)

2Dagon
It matters a lot what "it" is.  Common targets of "just try it" are mystic or semi-mystic experiences around drugs, meditation, religion, etc., These tend to be hard to communicate because they're not actually evidence of outside/objective phenomena, they're evidence of an individual's reaction to something.  I have no clue whether that applies here or not - that's my primary point: one size does not fit all. Note that Bob is making an error if he flatly denies Alice's experiences, rather than acknowledging that the experiences can be real without the underlying model being correct.
Ooker10

Do you mean that how the evidence is obtained in different problems and domains determines whether saying "You should try it first. You are reasoning too much" is still giving reasons on why T₁ is better? Can you elaborate or give examples?

Have they not agreed on the problem or on what would constitute a solution? 

I suppose it's because Bob isn't aware of all the things he needs to say before posting the question, and Alice assumes on what he needs while he thinks he doesn't need it.

2Dagon
Yes, different "it" will have VASTLY different costs and potential evidence from trying, so the discussion doesn't generalize very well.  "you are reasoning too much" implies "you are empirically testing too little", which could easily be true or false, or neither (it could be "you are reasoning badly from evidence we agree on" or "you need to BOTH measure and reason a lot more clearly"). For some (but not all) topics, "just try it" is INCREDIBLY unhelpful - most people are pretty bad observers, and a lot of things don't separate experiential elements in ways that are easy to analyze which parts are evidence, which parts are idiosyncratic triggers of internal states. Without actual specifics, it's hard to know WHY the disconnect is happening.  It does seem that Alice and Bob aren't in agreement over what the question is, but it's unclear which (if either) is closer to something useful.
Ooker*10

should Bob have tried , he would likely respond in another way

Why doesn't saying "T₁ is only strong in C, the nature of A is C" indicate that he has tried it?  

Yes, I haven't read the Sequences yet. Just the new user's guide. To make it quick, can you give me the section that's relevant to the question?

By "their perspectives", whose? If Alice's, then I think she would say all of them are incorrect. Because that's her position at the beginning. And that's useless information, since I don't know why she thinks so. If I know then I wouldn't ask th... (read more)

Ooker20

Thanks for your reply. It helps me refine my thinking. I have come up these questions, hope you can help me answering them:

  1. Is it correct that when Alice says "You should try it first. You are reasoning too much", she is no longer giving reasons on why T₁ is better?
  2. Is it correct that the experience state of Bob isn't relevant to the reasons why T₁ is better?
  3. Is it correct that it's possible for one to get closer to the truth via reasoning and conversing with people with direct experience, while not having direct experience themself? After all there are theor
... (read more)
3JBlack
1. The implication is that once Bob actually tries it, Bob will find that it's better. That is, Alice is showing how Bob can get evidence that it's better in reality, rather than playing around with models that may or may not predict which is better. Evidence is better than arguments. 2. Bob's experience state isn't relevant to whether T1 is better than T2 in this situation, but is relevant to whether Bob should take notice of any particular reasons for one or the other. 3. Of course theory should inform experiment. Theory cannot replace experiment, however. 4. Alice does not need to merely assume it, Alice has evidence of it.
1ProgramCrafter
Not actually assume, but that's certainly Bayesian evidence (should Bob have tried T1, he would likely respond in another way). Also, :smile: your own comment is a fairly large bit of evidence that you haven't yet read the Sequences (by the way, I recommend doing that). For instance, you can consider different ways of thinking, answer the questions 1-4 from their perspectives, and that would be evidence on which way is better - though, reality is still the ultimate judge how each situation turns out.