Language is always ambiguous. Experience and beliefs cannot be encoded truly precisely, no matter how big your vector. The human advice is “use more words”. Instead of “green apples”, say “unripe apples” or “ripe apples like granny smith, which are green”.
Advice for LLMs is probably “use a more precise shared embedding space”, which kind of boils down to the same thing. More bits of transmission = more fidelity of concept.
no matter how big your vector, experience and beliefs cannot be encoded truly precisely
More bits of transmission = more fidelity of concept
If it can’t be encoded, then there is nothing to add bits to.
I think “use more words” is right. But in those three lines, what fixed the axis wasn’t more words — it was B saying “Huh?”. A had no way of knowing what was missing from his own phrasing until B answered. “I should have said Granny Smiths” is available to A only after he learns that B read it as ripeness.
One CAN habitually or based on some knowledge of the audience be somewhat more precise (never perfectly, of course, and there’s an efficiency/precision tradeoff that’s REALLY unpleasant). But some aspects and details of an idea to communicate can best be identified with 2-way communication.
multi-turn discussions allow reflection and refinement, to see how party A’s words impact party B and to add more over time.
Note: “truly precisely” is important in my statement. One can get closer and closer with more words/bits, up to some asymptote.
Language is always ambiguous. Experience and beliefs cannot be encoded truly precisely, no matter how big your vector. The human advice is “use more words”. Instead of “green apples”, say “unripe apples” or “ripe apples like granny smith, which are green”.
Advice for LLMs is probably “use a more precise shared embedding space”, which kind of boils down to the same thing. More bits of transmission = more fidelity of concept.
If it can’t be encoded, then there is nothing to add bits to.
I think “use more words” is right. But in those three lines, what fixed the axis wasn’t more words — it was B saying “Huh?”. A had no way of knowing what was missing from his own phrasing until B answered. “I should have said Granny Smiths” is available to A only after he learns that B read it as ripeness.
Absolutely, and thanks for demonstrating!
One CAN habitually or based on some knowledge of the audience be somewhat more precise (never perfectly, of course, and there’s an efficiency/precision tradeoff that’s REALLY unpleasant). But some aspects and details of an idea to communicate can best be identified with 2-way communication.
multi-turn discussions allow reflection and refinement, to see how party A’s words impact party B and to add more over time.
Note: “truly precisely” is important in my statement. One can get closer and closer with more words/bits, up to some asymptote.