Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature]: OpenAI o1-like Chain-of-thought (CoT) inference workflow #8633

Open
1 task done
kozuch opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
1 task done

[Feature]: OpenAI o1-like Chain-of-thought (CoT) inference workflow #8633

kozuch opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@kozuch
Copy link

kozuch commented Sep 19, 2024

🚀 The feature, motivation and pitch

Well, I am surprised that the "main" and "great" new feature of the new OpenAI o1 model is actually doing say "more sophisticated" inference workflow while employing something like Chain-of-thought process. Basically I understand it that even a "dumb" model can perform much better when it "thinks more" during inference. The great news they are telling us is that by "thinking more" you can get smarter, which is probably very true also for humans.

The o1 model is probably trained to come up with its own CoT workflow for any given prompt, but I think it could be interesting to try to even hardcode some kind of workflow which any standard LLM model may try to follow during inference. Basically let the model analyze the prompt from various perspectives first and then try to judge on what type of "inference workflow" it should employ.

The hardcoded workflow could look like this:

  1. Prompt is submitted to the model.
  2. The model asks itself couple of hard-coded questions about the prompt, maybe:
  • is that some light conversation (needing soft-skills like empathy etc)
  • does it look like a science problem (math, physics etc.)
  • can I break the prompt down to subtasks - if yes, the workflow will feed each subtask into the model separately, then combine the result etc.
  • is the problem easy/hard
  • do I have all information I need (do I need to ask the user for further input/clarification)
  1. The workflow would run, maybe in multiple iterations on various its levels, maybe trying to fit some "quality checks" for the answer
  2. The output is presented to the user (the "hidden" thinking may be optionally viewed by user)

Anyone having the same feelings as I do about the CoT thing? Looks like even a hard-coded process may give some interesting results.

Alternatives

No response

Additional context

No response

Before submitting a new issue...

  • Make sure you already searched for relevant issues, and asked the chatbot living at the bottom right corner of the documentation page, which can answer lots of frequently asked questions.
@Playerrrrr
Copy link

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants