My main usecase for LLMs is literally as an auto-complete, mainly via coding, so I was wondering whether anyone has played with/had any luck using the base model for use cases that are close to simply auto completing? I could imagine the instruction tuning adding a sycophancy bias in those areas

  • wojcech@alien.topOPB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just to be clear, you aren’t doing fine tuning here as in gradient updates, you are using the base model + ICL?

    • phree_radical@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, basically like taking a few samples from a dataset and turning them into a short text “document” with an obvious pattern so the LLM will complete it

      Few-shot vs fine-tuning comparison:

      Pros:

      • converge behavior with much fewer examples
      • dynamic. changes to “dataset” applied without modifying model weights
      • no worry about whether important information is lost
      • can do things like average logits of single-token classification problems from multiple inferences (work around context length limitations)

      Cons:

      • needs context length, so can’t provide too many examples or too large
      • sometimes need “adversarial” examples to discourage repetition of text from other examples
      • models that are too small have worse ICL