A Generative Al Engineer has already trained an LLM on Databricks and it is now ready to be deployed.
Which of the following steps correctly outlines the easiest process for deploying a model on Databricks?
Problem Context: The goal is to deploy a trained LLM on Databricks in the simplest and most integrated manner.
Explanation of Options:
Option A: This method involves unnecessary steps like logging the model as a pickle object, which is not the most efficient path in a Databricks environment.
Option B: Logging the model with MLflow during training and then using MLflow's API to register and start serving the model is straightforward and leverages Databricks' built-in functionalities for seamless model deployment.
Option C: Building and running a Docker container is a complex and less integrated approach within the Databricks ecosystem.
Option D: Using Flask and Gunicorn is a more manual approach and less integrated compared to the native capabilities of Databricks and MLflow.
Option B provides the most straightforward and efficient process, utilizing Databricks' ecosystem to its full advantage for deploying models.
A Generative AI Engineer developed an LLM application using the provisioned throughput Foundation Model API. Now that the application is ready to be deployed, they realize their volume of requests are not sufficiently high enough to create their own provisioned throughput endpoint. They want to choose a strategy that ensures the best cost-effectiveness for their application.
What strategy should the Generative AI Engineer use?
Problem Context: The engineer needs a cost-effective deployment strategy for an LLM application with relatively low request volume.
Explanation of Options:
Option A: Switching to external models may not provide the required control or integration necessary for specific application needs.
Option B: Using a pay-per-token model is cost-effective, especially for applications with variable or low request volumes, as it aligns costs directly with usage.
Option C: Changing to a model with fewer parameters could reduce costs, but might also impact the performance and capabilities of the application.
Option D: Manually throttling requests is a less efficient and potentially error-prone strategy for managing costs.
Option B is ideal, offering flexibility and cost control, aligning expenses directly with the application's usage patterns.
A Generative AI Engineer is building an LLM to generate article summaries in the form of a type of poem, such as a haiku, given the article content. However, the initial output from the LLM does not match the desired tone or style.
Which approach will NOT improve the LLM's response to achieve the desired response?
The task at hand is to improve the LLM's ability to generate poem-like article summaries with the desired tone and style. Using a neutralizer to normalize the tone and style of the underlying documents (option B) will not help improve the LLM's ability to generate the desired poetic style. Here's why:
Neutralizing Underlying Documents: A neutralizer aims to reduce or standardize the tone of input data. However, this contradicts the goal, which is to generate text with a specific tone and style (like haikus). Neutralizing the source documents will strip away the richness of the content, making it harder for the LLM to generate creative, stylistic outputs like poems.
Why Other Options Improve Results:
A (Explicit Instructions in the Prompt): Directly instructing the LLM to generate text in a specific tone and style helps align the output with the desired format (e.g., haikus). This is a common and effective technique in prompt engineering.
C (Few-shot Examples): Providing examples of the desired output format helps the LLM understand the expected tone and structure, making it easier to generate similar outputs.
D (Fine-tuning the LLM): Fine-tuning the model on a dataset that contains examples of the desired tone and style is a powerful way to improve the model's ability to generate outputs that match the target format.
Therefore, using a neutralizer (option B) is not an effective method for achieving the goal of generating stylized poetic summaries.
A Generative AI Engineer is creating an LLM-powered application that will need access to up-to-date news articles and stock prices.
The design requires the use of stock prices which are stored in Delta tables and finding the latest relevant news articles by searching the internet.
How should the Generative AI Engineer architect their LLM system?
To build an LLM-powered system that accesses up-to-date news articles and stock prices, the best approach is to create an agent that has access to specific tools (option D).
Agent with SQL and Web Search Capabilities: By using an agent-based architecture, the LLM can interact with external tools. The agent can query Delta tables (for up-to-date stock prices) via SQL and perform web searches to retrieve the latest news articles. This modular approach ensures the system can access both structured (stock prices) and unstructured (news) data sources dynamically.
Why This Approach Works:
SQL Queries for Stock Prices: Delta tables store stock prices, which the agent can query directly for the latest data.
Web Search for News: For news articles, the agent can generate search queries and retrieve the most relevant and recent articles, then pass them to the LLM for processing.
Why Other Options Are Less Suitable:
A (Summarizing News for Stock Prices): This convoluted approach would not ensure accuracy when retrieving stock prices, which are already structured and stored in Delta tables.
B (Stock Price Volatility Queries): While this could retrieve relevant information, it doesn't address how to obtain the most up-to-date news articles.
C (Vector Store): Storing news articles and stock prices in a vector store might not capture the real-time nature of stock data and news updates, as it relies on pre-existing data rather than dynamic querying.
Thus, using an agent with access to both SQL for querying stock prices and web search for retrieving news articles is the best approach for ensuring up-to-date and accurate responses.
A Generative AI Engineer is designing a chatbot for a gaming company that aims to engage users on its platform while its users play online video games.
Which metric would help them increase user engagement and retention for their platform?
In the context of designing a chatbot to engage users on a gaming platform, diversity of responses (option B) is a key metric to increase user engagement and retention. Here's why:
Diverse and Engaging Interactions: A chatbot that provides varied and interesting responses will keep users engaged, especially in an interactive environment like a gaming platform. Gamers typically enjoy dynamic and evolving conversations, and diversity of responses helps prevent monotony, encouraging users to interact more frequently with the bot.
Increasing Retention: By offering different types of responses to similar queries, the chatbot can create a sense of novelty and excitement, which enhances the user's experience and makes them more likely to return to the platform.
Why Other Options Are Less Effective:
A (Randomness): Random responses can be confusing or irrelevant, leading to frustration and reducing engagement.
C (Lack of Relevance): If responses are not relevant to the user's queries, this will degrade the user experience and lead to disengagement.
D (Repetition of Responses): Repetitive responses can quickly bore users, making the chatbot feel uninteresting and reducing the likelihood of continued interaction.
Thus, diversity of responses (option B) is the most effective way to keep users engaged and retain them on the platform.
Carri
12 days agoAntonette
12 days agoOcie
12 days ago