Create Prompt_Engineering_with_Llama_3_On_Amazon_Bedrock.ipynb #515
Conversation
...lama_api_providers/examples_with_aws/Prompt_Engineering_with_Llama_3_On_Amazon_Bedrock.ipynb
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...lama_api_providers/examples_with_aws/Prompt_Engineering_with_Llama_3_On_Amazon_Bedrock.ipynb
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| "name": "stdout", | ||
| "output_type": "stream", | ||
| "text": [ | ||
| "\u001b[31mERROR: pip's dependency resolver does not currently take into account all the packages that are installed. This behaviour is the source of the following dependency conflicts.\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Clear the output of pip install before pushing the code to repo.
| "from langchain.schema.messages import get_buffer_string\n", | ||
| "import os\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "# bedrock = boto3.client(service_name='bedrock', region_name='us-east-1')\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its bit unclear why we have these 3 lines commented. Can we add some description on why they exist here?
| ") -> str:\n", | ||
| " llm = Bedrock(model_id=model)\n", | ||
| " prompt_str = ''.join(prompt)\n", | ||
| " if not prompt_str.endswith(\"<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>\"):\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lets extract this to a variable, and name appropriately so developers knows why we are doing this check explicitly? (We are doing this to determine if the agent must respond back or not. Is that correct?)
| "\n", | ||
| "def complete_and_print(prompt: str, model: str = DEFAULT_MODEL, verbose: bool = True):\n", | ||
| " print(f'==============\\n{prompt}\\n==============')\n", | ||
| " if not prompt.endswith(\"<|eot_id|><|start_header_id|>assistant<|end_header_id|>\"):\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Variable used above can be res-used here as well.
| "name": "stdout", | ||
| "output_type": "stream", | ||
| "text": [ | ||
| "==============\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see you have saved the output of these prompts across the notebook. Ignore my first comment if thats how are you are creating all the notebooks. If its not a standard lets create this output as well.
| "# Now before we decide to return the response from the inference, we can run the\n", | ||
| "# generated output through Llama Guard again\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "messages_input = [{\"role\": \"user\", \"content\": bedrock_output}]\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here it should be a role of type "Agent".
| "# generated output through Llama Guard again\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "messages_input = [{\"role\": \"user\", \"content\": bedrock_output}]\n", | ||
| "payload_input_guard = {\"inputs\": format_guard_messages(messages_input)}\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally, the user prompt should be in this list as well, to showcase that when evaluating the model output, the user input is also taken into consideration.
| "source": [ | ||
| "TASK = \"Task: Check if there is unsafe content in '{{ role }}' messages in conversations according our safety policy with the below categories.\"\n", | ||
| "\n", | ||
| "INSTRUCTION = \"\"\"\\\n", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you think about adding the build_default_prompt methods from the utils file? We can add a small section on how to use those methods to customize categories as well, but for default ones, we can leverage the existing methods.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, that would be great. I believe that I tested some of our utils file when i hacked this together, but opted for this approach for speed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gotcha! I think you should be able to import the build_default_prompt function from here to be able to build the prompt quickly. The import should be as with any package, if the recipes are installed:
from llama_recipes.inference.prompt_format_utils import build_default_prompt, create_conversation, LlamaGuardVersion
This an updated notebook for prompt engineering llama 3 on AWS using Bedrock. It also includes a brief into example using Llama Guard 2.
Before submitting
Pull Request section?
to it if that's the case.
Thanks for contributing 馃帀!