Question from Reddit - Can you use control vectors to guide the grammar of the LLM?
I posted on r/llocalLlama about Twilight-Large-123B, a merged model derived from Mistral Large 123B and how it supports control vectors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1g4yqah/new_creative_writing_model_introducing/
Anyway, there was a question in the comments -
Can you use control vectors to guide the grammar of the LLM?
For example: "Do not write complex sentences or use dependent clauses."
https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1g4yqah/comment/lsaeyev/
Thanks,
Ash
Somebody asked this in a different thread yesterday:
The key thing with control-vectors is they can only really modify a single "concept" at a time and you have to be able to describe the concept in 5-10 different ways, and also be able to describe the exact opposite concept in 5-10 different ways; preferably using very similar wording and sentence length for each matched positive/negative example (I found Claude Sonnet 3.5 very good at this).
Do not write complex sentences or use dependent clauses.
For this specific example the current "Language: Simple vs Ornate" control-vector is doing appropriately what is asked.
I think "or use dependent clauses" is probably too specific and hard to rephrase and/or negativity phrase.
Also the structure of "not X or Y" might be slightly ambiguous and take extra parsing effort for the LLM and "not X and not Y" might be a better way of phrasing this (again Claude Sonnet 3.5 is very good at avoiding stuff like this).
Really it comes down to just trying things out: the 8 control vectors I have uploaded here for each model have been extensively refined, and there were a lot of other experimental ones that didn't really work.