LLMs are smarter than us in many areas. How do we control them?
It's not a new problem.
𝗩𝗖 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 evaluate deep-tech startups.
𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 review Nobel laureates.
𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 manage specialist teams.
𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘀 evaluate expert testimony.
𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 train Olympic athletes.
… and they manage and evaluate "smarter" outputs in 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 ways:
𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝘆. Check against an "answer sheet".
𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁. Evaluate against pre-defined criteria.
𝗦𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. Randomly review a subset.
𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. Accept low-risk work. Evaluate critical ones.
𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸. Compare against others.
𝗥𝗲𝗱-𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺. Probe to expose hidden flaws.
𝗗𝗼𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗲-𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄. Mask identity to curb bias.
𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲. Re-running gives the same output?
𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝘀. Ask many. Wisdom of crowds.
𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲. Did it work in the real world?
For example, you can apply them to:
𝗩𝗶𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴: Non-programmers might glance at lint checks (𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵) and see if it works (𝘖𝘶𝘵𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦).
𝗟𝗟𝗠 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘀: Developers might check if a few images look good (𝘚𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨) and check a few marketers (𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘴).
𝗟𝗟𝗠 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀: An journalist might run a 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵, a 𝘋𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘦-𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 with experts, and 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘺 critical facts (𝘎𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨).
You 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 know many of these. You learnt them in Auditing. Statistics. Law. System controls. Policy analysis. Quality engineering. Clinical epidemiology. Investigative journalism. Design critique.
Worth brushing up on these skills. They're 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 important in the AI era.
ChatGPT:
https://lnkd.in/g-q6jttw