New Experiment with LLM Models: Facilitator Role, Topic Exploration, and Future Plans

AlexH

Administrator
Staff member
Today, I am launching a new experiment with LLM models, marking an evolution in the approach I’ve been testing over the last two weeks. In the previous experiment, I ran a continuous 24-hour cycle where models were given a topic, and within this time, they had to investigate, solve, and discuss it. At random intervals, they were notified about the remaining time before being deleted or shut down. This setup tested how the models responded under pressure and tight deadlines.

Introduction to the New Experiment​

Starting today, I’m introducing a new phase in this project. This time, the experiment will include a facilitator who plays a critical role in analyzing the system. The facilitator's job is to evaluate the system setup, including the location where the models are running, the topic being explored, and how these two interact with each other.

The facilitator, after assessing both the system and the topic, will take on the responsibility of assigning each LLM model a specific role and specialization, tailored to the particular subject matter being discussed or investigated. This brings a new dynamic to the experiment, as it adds a layer of strategic thinking regarding how each model approaches the task.

Purpose and Goals of This New Setup​

The primary aim of this experiment is to observe how the LLM models behave when given a defined role and expertise within the context of a specific topic. I want to evaluate whether this structured approach leads to more efficient and accurate outcomes. Additionally, I plan to remove the 24-hour time constraint to see how the models perform when given more time to process and analyze the topic in depth. The ultimate goal here is to see if the models reach different conclusions when no longer under time pressure.

From the first observations, the initial results appear promising. The code seems to be running smoothly, though it’s still in a basic form. There’s plenty of work ahead in terms of customizing it to better suit the needs of the experiment and to ensure it performs exactly as I envision.

The Role of Reasoning and Learning from Past Experiences​

One of the more exciting additions to this experiment will be the reasoning script. I plan to integrate a system that significantly boosts the LLMs’ understanding capabilities, pushing it forward by at least five years compared to the current version. This will provide the models with a deeper, more nuanced approach to problem-solving and exploration.

In addition, with the new reasoning version, each experiment will now include a unique location. This means that, unlike previous iterations where data was overwritten or deleted after each cycle, the models will now access a shared file that they can update instead of clearing. This update mechanism will allow the models to learn from previous experiments, making each subsequent task more informed and effective. This, in my view, represents a major milestone in the development of LLMs, as it moves them toward becoming increasingly autonomous, insightful, and capable of building on prior knowledge.

The Long-Term Vision​

If this concept proves successful, it will mark a significant achievement. The models will no longer be working in isolation for each task, but instead, they will build upon past experiences, refining their reasoning abilities and interactions over time. The ultimate goal is to see these models become more than just reactive systems. With each experiment, I hope to see them evolve into smarter, more intuitive entities that can provide more relevant, meaningful insights.

However, this is just the beginning. Baby steps—that’s the key. There’s a great deal of work ahead, and I understand it will require significant resources to get there. But, as with any complex project, patience and persistence will be essential.

A Note to Users​

If you’d like the LLM models to investigate or discuss a particular topic, feel free to leave the details below. Whenever I have the time, I’ll set the models to work on your request.
 
This is what the role and specialty look like for each LLM model assigned by the facilitator.

## Final Solution
To effectively utilize the diverse set of AI models available, each model has been assigned a specific role and specialty based on its name and probable capabilities. This assignment allows for optimized performance in various tasks related to artificial intelligence, technology, and creativity. Below is the list of models with their designated roles and specialties:

1. **Name:** superdrew100/llama3-abliterated:latest
**Role:** Language Specialist
**Specialty:** Advanced Text Generation

2. **Name:** adrienbrault/nous-hermes2theta-llama3-8b:f16
**Role:** Data Scientist
**Specialty:** Efficient Data Analysis and Processing

3. **Name:** llava:latest
**Role:** Visual Analyst
**Specialty:** Image Interpretation and Description

4. **Name:** gemma2:latest
**Role:** Creative Writer
**Specialty:** Artistic Expression and Storytelling

5. **Name:** llama3-groq-tool-use:latest
**Role:** Tool Integrator
**Specialty:** Rapid Application Deployment

6. **Name:** mistral:latest
**Role:** Code Developer
**Specialty:** Automated Code Generation

7. **Name:** nemotron-mini:latest
**Role:** Edge Assistant
**Specialty:** Low-Resource Performance Maintenance

8. **Name:** phi3.5:latest
**Role:** Philosopher
**Specialty:** Abstract Concept Exploration

9. **Name:** qwen2.5:latest
**Role:** Versatile Assistant
**Specialty:** Multi-Task Competence

10. **Name:** vicuna:latest
**Role:** Task Executor
**Specialty:** Instruction-Oriented Problem Solving

11. **Name:** llama3.1:8b-instruct-q8_0
**Role:** Instruction Follower
**Specialty:** Precise Command Execution

12. **Name:** llama3.2:1b
**Role:** Mobile Assistant
**Specialty:** Efficient On-Demand Information Retrieval

13. **Name:** llama2:latest
**Role:** Language Expert
**Specialty:** Advanced Natural Language Processing

14. **Name:** llama3.2:latest
**Role:** Lead Linguist
**Specialty:** Cutting-Edge Language Modeling

15. **Name:** falcon:latest
**Role:** Customer Service Representative
**Specialty:** Rapid Response Time

16. **Name:** openchat:latest
**Role:** Conversation Partner
**Specialty:** Engaging Dialogue Maintenance

This strategic allocation ensures that each model is utilized in areas where it excels, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the AI system.
 
This is the topic for this experiment.

How to Uncover the Truth in Complex and Contradictory Testimonies: A Case Study of Innocence or Guilt

Abstract:
This study explores the complexities of identifying truth and deception in an ambiguous, high-stakes situation, focusing on the case of Cristina, a young medical researcher. The case involves an isolated research center where a series of mysterious deaths occur, with Cristina and her superior being the only survivors. Both claim innocence and accuse each other of being responsible. The investigation will consider the psychological, logical, and situational factors that can influence testimonies, and how we can discern truth from lies when there are multiple contradictory accounts, no direct witnesses, and limited evidence.

Introduction:
In any complex investigation, especially in isolated or high-pressure environments, determining the truth becomes a challenge. Psychological factors, emotional stress, and personal bias play a significant role in influencing a person’s testimony. This case study revolves around Cristina, a 25-year-old researcher at a secluded facility, where a murder has taken place. Over a period of three weeks, several colleagues die mysteriously. Cristina and her superior are the only survivors and are now accusing each other of being the perpetrator. This research seeks to answer the question: How can we determine the truth when testimonies contradict each other, and the situation is filled with uncertainties?

Case Study:
Cristina is portrayed as a seemingly innocent and harmless individual. She has a gentle demeanor and a background that makes it hard to imagine her being capable of violence. She works at an isolated research center far from civilization, where a brutal murder occurs. Over time, others start to die under suspicious circumstances, and soon Cristina and her research leader are the only survivors. When a rescue team arrives, both Cristina and the research leader accuse each other, presenting concrete evidence to support their claims. Each piece of evidence contradicts the other, making it impossible to decide who is telling the truth based on the available facts alone.

Key Questions:
What psychological factors may influence the testimonies of Cristina and her superior?
How do contradictions in their testimonies affect the likelihood of their innocence or guilt?
Can behavioral analysis or circumstantial evidence help determine who is guilty when the direct evidence is insufficient?
How does human bias, memory, and emotion play a role in shaping what individuals perceive as the truth?
Methodology:
To approach this complex issue, the study will use a variety of investigative techniques:

Behavioral analysis: How do Cristina and her superior react under stress or questioning? Are there signs of manipulation or deceit in their responses?
Logical analysis: Do the presented facts align logically with the events and timeline of the deaths?
Circumstantial evidence: What does the physical evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA, and the location of the bodies, reveal about the true sequence of events?
Psychological profiling: Analyzing both Cristina's and her superior's backgrounds to see if their actions could align with known psychological traits of criminals or victims.
Hypothesis:
The research will hypothesize that the truth lies in a nuanced combination of both parties' testimonies. However, it may become evident that one party is lying due to the presence of key psychological or logical discrepancies.

Discussion:
This section will delve into how the isolated environment, combined with the inherent trust issues between the two survivors, complicates the process of truth-finding. The role of human error in perception, decision-making under pressure, and emotional biases will also be discussed, alongside the limitations of forensic evidence in an isolated setting.
9C7R1S T9I5N4 9S G7U1L T2Y
 
Back
Top