<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Ensemble-Methods on Dylan Ler</title><link>http://dylanler.github.io/tags/ensemble-methods/</link><description>Recent content in Ensemble-Methods on Dylan Ler</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.133.0</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:15:00 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://dylanler.github.io/tags/ensemble-methods/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Wisdom of Crowds: What LLM Disagreement Reveals About AI Uncertainty</title><link>http://dylanler.github.io/posts/wisdom-of-crowds-ensemble-disagreement/</link><pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:15:00 -0700</pubDate><guid>http://dylanler.github.io/posts/wisdom-of-crowds-ensemble-disagreement/</guid><description>When multiple AI models disagree, what does that tell us?
The &amp;ldquo;wisdom of crowds&amp;rdquo; phenomenon shows that aggregating independent judgments often outperforms individual experts. But for AI systems, ensemble disagreement might reveal something deeper: the structure of uncertainty itself.
The Hypothesis When multiple LLMs disagree on a question, the pattern of disagreement reveals the epistemological nature of the problem:
High agreement → Robust, well-established knowledge Systematic disagreement → Genuine ambiguity or value-laden territory Random disagreement → Knowledge gaps or reasoning failures Experiment Design We queried 4 models (Claude Opus 4.</description></item></channel></rss>