SShortSingh.
Back to feed

In-Context Learning Lets Language Models Adapt to Tasks Without Retraining

0
·3 views

In-context learning teaches a language model a new task by placing examples directly in the input prompt, leaving its internal parameters unchanged. Unlike traditional machine learning, which typically requires retraining or fine-tuning with new data, this approach avoids the time and cost of updating the model. It works because large language models such as GPT-3 and Llama 2 are trained on diverse text and learn to recognize and imitate patterns shown to them. The method is practical for tasks that change often or lack sufficient training data, and it requires only clear instructions and a few examples. The article illustrates this with a few-shot prompt that pairs countries with their capitals and asks the model to complete the pattern for a new country.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

Log in to join the discussion and vote.

Log in

Related stories

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Reject Duplicate JSON Keys Before Validating a Record

A technical article explains why validating only the dictionary produced by a JSON decoder can miss repeated member names, since the duplicate may vanish during decoding. It recommends inspecting key-value pairs during decoding, using Python's object_pairs_hook to detect repeats at every nesting level. The article presents a teaching parser that enforces a 4,096-byte UTF-8 limit, requires a top-level object, rejects non-finite constants like NaN, and parses decimals as Decimal values. The example code was tested locally on Python 3.12 with six cases, using invented fixtures rather than production data. The author notes that this decoding check is separate from application-level schema and range validation, which should be tested independently.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Security, safety, robustness and privacy are distinct AI risk problems

Teams often lump all AI risks under a single label like security or safety, which makes it hard to tell whether a guardrail actually addresses them. The article argues these four concerns are related but distinct: security covers unauthorized actors violating confidentiality, integrity, availability or control, while safety concerns harm from normal operation, even without an attacker. Robustness asks whether behavior stays acceptable under noise, shifted data or ambiguity, and privacy asks whether personal information is collected, used or disclosed appropriately. Using a clinical summarization model as an example, it shows how one scenario can be a security attack, a robustness failure, or a privacy problem, each requiring different controls. The author recommends assigning separate owners, evidence and thresholds to each discipline within a shared risk register.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Developer builds YouTube feed showing only new uploads, no recommendations or Shorts

A developer grew frustrated with losing hours on YouTube after following recommendations and autoplay from unrelated channels. They built Plainfeed, a page that lists new videos from chosen channels in upload order, excluding recommendations and Shorts. The list has a natural end, so the user can stop once the new uploads are seen. Shorts made up about 26% of recent uploads across 40 tracked channels, so filtering them shortens the list considerably. The tool does not impose time limits or try to improve recommendations; it simply removes them, and it is not meant to replace YouTube for searching or browsing.

0
ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Eight digestive condition guides share one data file, and their lengths vary widely

A developer studied eight digestive condition guides on the Munchable site, all defined as entries in a single build-time data array. The guides range from about 1,041 to 2,034 words, and the longest was also the most recently written, reflecting growing editorial experience rather than any deliberate structural rule. The author argues that the content type's optional further-reading field, used by only one entry, illustrates how optional fields can accumulate and hide thin content. Comparing the pages' internal links and inbound links from ingredient pages shows how the measured differences reveal patterns that a CMS would obscure.