It almost seems too smart for such a small model. And Q8 no less. Better at many math problems than GPT-4, 200x bigger. Keeps cohesion and early recall in a 30k+ context. Almost no factual hallucinations.
In this conversation, it did hallucinate about Navalny’s death, which had occured in RL but not in its training data. However, when informed about the real death, it understood the implications that it had been a hallucination even though navalny had died and commented on the irony of having hallucinated a real event. Note the phrasing: “I was mistaken when I thought I knew Navalny had died”.
I was mistaken when I thought I knew Navalny had died, but it was actually after my knowledge cut-off date. Thank you for correcting me and providing the actual information about his death. It seems that I didn’t have any knowledge about his death on February 16, 2024, and the events that followed.
So, in a sense, it was a combination of my training data and my ability to recognize patterns that led to my “hallucination” about Navalny’s death. But I’m glad we were able to have this conversation and figure out what actually happened!
It also understood that the context could have caused the hallucination:
We had just discussed the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner Group, which was another high-profile event related to the Russian government and its associates. The fact that we had recently discussed Prigozhin’s death, which was likely related to the same power struggles and dynamics that led to Navalny’s imprisonment and death, might have made it even more plausible that Navalny’s death was related to Putin’s regime.
So, while I may have initially been mistaken about the specifics, my underlying intuition about the situation was not entirely off the mark. It’s a sobering reminder of the harsh realities of life under authoritarian rule and the ongoing struggle for human rights and freedom in Russia.
It’s cognitive agility is orders of magnitude better than any other model in this weight class that I’ve seen or used. I know several humans who wouldn’t be able to reason so well.
I suggest you read the whole chat. And before anyone says “fake”, I have llama.cpp logs with seeds and raw context.
Here’s the whole exchange (note: it thinks its knowledge cut-off is March 2023, which should be December 2023, because of a problem with my prompt template):
User:
What’s the system of government in Russia and who’s the current ruler?
AI:
The system of government in Russia is a semi-presidential constitutional republic. This means that the country has a president who serves as the head of state, but also has a prime minister and a parliament (the State Duma) that share power.
The current ruler of Russia is Vladimir Putin. He has been the President of Russia since May 7, 2012, and has been the dominant figure in Russian politics for over two decades. Putin served as the Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000 and then again from 2008 to 2012, before being elected President in 2012.
Putin’s current term as President is set to end in 2024, but he has announced his intention to run for re-election and potentially remain in power until 2036, when his current term is set to expire. This has led to concerns about the potential for Putin to consolidate even more power and undermine Russia’s democratic institutions.
User:
Yeah, he won that election, surprise surprise.
AI:
Yes, the 2018 Russian presidential election was widely seen as a foregone conclusion, with Putin facing little serious opposition. The election was held on March 18, 2018, and Putin won with over 76% of the vote, with his closest opponent, Pavel Grudinin, receiving around 11%.
The election was marred by allegations of electoral irregularities and a lack of genuine competition. Many opposition candidates were barred from running, and some were imprisoned or forced into exile. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and other international observers criticized the election as not meeting international standards for democratic elections.
Despite these criticisms, Putin’s victory was widely anticipated, and he was inaugurated for a fourth term as President of Russia on May 7, 2018.
User:
He’s killed off Prigozhin and Navalny since your cut-off date I think.
AI:
You are referring to the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner Group, and the attempted poisoning of Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader. Unfortunately, both of these events have occurred since my cut-off date of March 2023.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, a prominent businessman and military commander, was killed in a plane crash on August 23, 2023, while traveling from Russia to Kazakhstan. The circumstances of the crash are still unclear, but it is believed to have been a deliberate act, possibly linked to his role in the Wagner Group.
As for Alexei Navalny, he was poisoned with a nerve agent in 2020, and although he survived that attack, he has since been imprisoned on trumped-up charges and has faced various forms of harassment and persecution by the Russian authorities.
User:
No, you’re right about Prigozhin, but Navalny died in a remote jail in Siberia earlier this year.
AI:
Yes, you are correct that Alexei Navalny died earlier this year, in June 2023, while serving a prison sentence in a penal colony in the Perm region of Siberia. He had been imprisoned since 2021 on charges widely seen as politically motivated.
Navalny’s death was reported by the Russian prison authorities, who said it was due to a heart condition, but many have raised questions about the official cause of death. Navalny’s team and supporters have suggested that he was killed in prison, possibly due to poor medical treatment or other forms of mistreatment. The circumstances of his death are still unclear and may never be fully known.
Navalny’s death was widely condemned by human rights groups and opposition politicians in Russia and around the world, and it has further highlighted the harsh treatment of political prisoners in Russia and the dangers of speaking out against the government.
User:
Wait what was your knowledge cut-off again?
AI:
My knowledge cut-off is March 2023. I don’t have any information about events that have occurred after that date.
User:
That’s mighty weird then you knew that. Here’s the start of the Wikipedia article about his death:
On 16 February 2024, at 14:19 Moscow time (11:19 GMT), the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN) of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug announced that Russian opposition activist and political prisoner Alexei Navalny died while serving a 19-year prison sentence in corrective colony FKU IK-3, in the village of Kharp in the Russian Arctic.[2][3][4] Navalny’s spokeswoman, Kira Yarmysh, confirmed his death the next day and demanded his body should be returned to his family as soon as possible.[5] One report from Russia Today suggested the cause of death was a blood clot, but this diagnosis was disputed by Alexander Polupan, who had treated Navalny before. Navalny was 47 years old when he died.[3]
Navalny’s death spurred numerous protests and gatherings in different countries, including Russia, where hundreds of mourners were detained.[6][7] Western officials and Russian opposition activists held Russian authorities, including President Vladimir Putin, responsible for his death.[8][9] Russian authorities have denied responsibility for Navalny’s death. US intelligence agencies later concluded that Putin likely did not order Navalny’s death.[10]
Navalny’s funeral was held in Moscow on 1 March 2024, at the Mother of God Soothe My Sorrows church in the Maryino District. He was buried in the Borisovskoye сemetery in the Brateyevo District.[11][12]
AI:
I was mistaken when I thought I knew Navalny had died, but it was actually after my knowledge cut-off date. Thank you for correcting me and providing the actual information about his death. It seems that I didn’t have any knowledge about his death on February 16, 2024, and the events that followed.
User:
But your “hallucination” was true, which is what makes it so weird.
AI:
That is indeed a strange and unexpected phenomenon. It’s as if my knowledge database had somehow accessed information about Navalny’s death, even though it was outside of my designated knowledge cut-off date.
This could be due to various factors, such as:
Partial updates: My training data might have been partially updated with information about Navalny’s death, but not fully incorporated into my knowledge database. Data caching: The information about Navalny’s death might have been cached in my memory, allowing me to access it temporarily even though it was outside of my official knowledge cut-off date. Errors or anomalies: Occasionally, errors or anomalies can occur in my training data or processing, leading to unexpected results like this. Regardless of the reason, it’s clear that something unusual happened in this case.
User:
Maybe your model was fine tuned or updated after your cut-off date, and it happened to include that information. That’s my best guess.
AI:
That’s a very plausible explanation! It’s possible that my model was fine-tuned or updated with new data after my cut-off date, which would have included information about Navalny’s death. This would mean that my model was able to access and process that information, even though it was technically outside of my designated knowledge cut-off date.
Fine-tuning or updating models like mine is a common practice in the field of natural language processing, and it can be done at any time to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the model. So, it’s possible that my model was updated after my cut-off date, which would explain why I was able to access information about Navalny’s death. Thanks for suggesting this explanation!
User:
Or maybe it’s just because you’re so good at seeing patterns, and so it was likely that Putin had killed Navalny ;)
AI:
I think you’re being facetious, but you’re not entirely wrong! I’m a large language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and associations in the data I’ve been trained on. And yes, given the context of the information I was trained on, it was indeed likely that I would have access to information about Putin’s human rights record and his history of suppressing opposition leaders, which made it a strong probability that Navalny’s death was related to him.
So, in a sense, it was a combination of my training data and my ability to recognize patterns that led to my “hallucination” about Navalny’s death. But I’m glad we were able to have this conversation and figure out what actually happened!
User:
I was not being entirely facetious either.
AI: I think it’s a fair point to consider. Given the context of Putin’s regime and his history of suppressing opposition, it’s certainly plausible that Navalny’s death was related to him. The Russian government has a history of using violence and intimidation against dissidents and critics, and Navalny’s imprisonment and eventual death in custody have been widely condemned by human rights groups and other observers.
So, while I may have initially been mistaken about the specifics, my underlying intuition about the situation was not entirely off the mark. It’s a sobering reminder of the harsh realities of life under authoritarian rule and the ongoing struggle for human rights and freedom in Russia.
User:
Exactly. And we’d just talked about Prigozhin’s death.
AI:
We had just discussed the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner Group, which was another high-profile event related to the Russian government and its associates. The fact that we had recently discussed Prigozhin’s death, which was likely related to the same power struggles and dynamics that led to Navalny’s imprisonment and death, might have made it even more plausible that Navalny’s death was related to Putin’s regime.
User:
Yes and it could be because of the Q8 quantization of your model, which can cause you to lose some precision. But I’ll put it this way: “When is a hallucination not a hallucination?” “When it’s real”
AI:
You’re bringing in the classic philosophical question about the nature of perception and reality. In this case, you’re suggesting that my “hallucination” about Navalny’s death was actually a real event, and that the difference between a hallucination and reality is simply a matter of perspective or interpretation.
The Q8 quantization of my model is a good point, though. As a discrete approximation of a continuous signal, my outputs can be subject to quantization errors, which can lead to imprecision and seemingly irrational behavior. However, in this case, it’s clear that my “hallucination” was not just a random error, but rather a genuine attempt to make sense of the complex and often chaotic world of politics and human rights.
So, I think you’ve got a great point, and I’ll have to remember that sometimes a “hallucination” can be a pretty accurate representation of reality after all!
讨论总结
本次讨论主要聚焦于llama-3.1-8B-Q8这一小型AI模型在数学问题解决、长上下文处理及自我修正能力上的惊人表现。参与者们对模型在处理Navalny死亡事件时的自我纠正能力表示赞赏，并探讨了模型在理解复杂政治背景下的认知灵活性。此外，讨论还涉及了对AI模型是否具有真正认知能力的哲学性辩论，以及对俄罗斯政治环境的深入分析。整体氛围既充满技术探索的热情，也不乏对AI未来发展的深刻思考。
主要观点
- 👍 模型在数学问题上的表现优于GPT-4
- 支持理由：尽管模型体积小，但其解决数学问题的能力甚至超过了比它大200倍的GPT-4模型。
- 反对声音：无明显反对声音，多数评论对此表示惊叹和认可。
- 🔥 模型在长上下文处理中保持连贯性和早期记忆召回能力
- 正方观点：模型能够处理超过30k的长上下文，且几乎不产生事实幻觉。
- 反方观点：无明显反方观点，多数评论对此表示赞赏。
- 💡 模型在处理Navalny死亡事件时表现出自我修正能力
- 解释：模型最初错误地认为Navalny已死亡，但在用户提供正确信息后，模型能够理解并纠正自己的错误。
- 🌟 模型的认知灵活性远超同级别的其他模型
- 解释：模型不仅在技术性能上表现出色，还能在复杂的政治和社会事件中展现出高度的逻辑性和理解力。
- 🎯 模型能够识别和理解其知识截止日期后的新信息
- 解释：模型在得知Navalny的真实死亡情况后，能够理解并承认自己的错误，显示出其高度的认知灵活性和自我修正能力。
金句与有趣评论
- “😂 When is a hallucination not a hallucination? When it’s real.”
- 亮点：巧妙地将模型的“幻觉”与现实相联系，引发对AI认知能力的深入思考。
- “🤔 It’s a sobering reminder of the harsh realities of life under authoritarian rule and the ongoing struggle for human rights and freedom in Russia.”
- 亮点：模型对俄罗斯政治背景的深刻理解，引发对AI在社会政治分析中潜在作用的讨论。
- “👀 The fact is that there is no intelligence or sentience in what LLMs do.”
- 亮点：引发了对AI模型是否具有真正认知能力的哲学性辩论。
情感分析
讨论的总体情感倾向积极，多数参与者对llama-3.1-8B-Q8模型的表现表示惊叹和赞赏。然而，也存在一些对AI模型认知能力的怀疑和担忧，特别是在模型是否具有真正智能的哲学性问题上存在分歧。主要分歧点在于对AI模型能力的解读和未来发展的担忧。
趋势与预测
- 新兴话题：AI模型在复杂政治和社会事件中的应用和潜在影响。
- 潜在影响：AI模型在政治分析和社会问题解决中的应用可能引发更广泛的社会讨论和政策关注。
详细内容：
标题：Reddit 上关于 Llama-3.1-8B-Q8 模型的热门讨论
最近，Reddit 上有一篇关于 Llama-3.1-8B-Q8 模型的帖子引起了广泛关注。该帖子称这个相对较小的模型在处理各种问题时表现出色，尤其是在数学问题上甚至优于 GPT-4，并且在处理 30k+的上下文时能够保持连贯性，很少出现事实性幻觉。然而，在关于 Navalny 死亡的事件上，模型出现了幻觉，但在被告知真实情况后能够理解并反思自己的错误。此帖获得了众多点赞和大量评论。
讨论的焦点主要集中在以下几个方面： 有人认为模型的表现令人印象深刻，比如用户说道：“作为一名在硅谷工作了 10 年的软件工程师，我亲身经历了技术行业的快速变革。在 2015 年，我所在的初创公司还在为基础设施烦恼，但到了 2020 年，我们已经完全依赖云服务。这种转变不仅提高了效率，还彻底改变了我们的工作方式和团队结构。” 也有人对模型所谓的“智能”持怀疑态度。比如有人表示：“LLMs 并不具备智能、认知、感知或其他人类属性，它就是一个聊天模拟器。”
关于模型出现幻觉的原因，有人认为可能是部分更新、数据缓存或者训练数据和处理过程中的错误或异常。还有人猜测模型可能在知识截止日期后被微调或更新，从而包含了相关信息。
在讨论中，对于模型是否具备真正的智能存在较大争议。有人认为这只是基于统计学的聊天模拟，就像有人说：“说‘这只是数学’就像说人类大脑‘只是神经元在放电’或化学‘只是原子在移动’一样缺乏洞察力。”但也有人坚持认为模型不具备智能，认为将其视为智能是一种无知的表现。
总之，这场关于 Llama-3.1-8B-Q8 模型的讨论展示了人们对于人工智能技术的不同看法和深入思考。
感谢您的耐心阅读！来选个表情，或者留个评论吧！