Recent comments in /f/MachineLearning

farmingvillein t1_jd47vh9 wrote

OK, insofar as you care about adoption, I'd encourage you to clean up the README to make it much clearer as to what you're doing. Right now, you've got API call examples, but it isn't clear what is actually happening, why this wrapper is helpful/necessary, etc.

I can guess/infer all the above, but you want your README to make it really, really quick and easy for your readers to figure out what is going on.

1

usc-ur OP t1_jd3nzab wrote

The main purpose of this project is joining in a single environment all the resources (models, prompts, APIs, etc.) related to LLMs. Moreover, we also think from an end-user perspective. It is heavily unlikely that a user would introduce a complex context in a query to a model or searcher. In this project, we try to bias the different model responses to answer in different ways/behaviors, but hidding this to end-users.

1

paulgavrikov t1_jd3jf74 wrote

Currently there are no good methods to do this. There’s discussion of existing methods and many insights into the problem in this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14486

TL;DR: which images you should remove depends on the ratio between samples / parameters, no current method works anywhere near ideal, but you may see improvements if you choose the most expensive methods

1

UnusualClimberBear t1_jd3gqap wrote

Usually, the problem is the combinatorial nature of the possible number of rules that could apply. Here they seem to be able to find a subset of possible rules with a polynomial complexity, but as table 7 of the second paper contains tiny 'wrt ML/RL data) instances of problems, I would answer yes to your questions. ILP is something coming with strong guarantees, while ML comes with a statistical risk. Theses guarantees aren't free.

1