How VentureBeat Addressed Verbalized Sampling (and how Google Gemini addressed it a second time)

I’m obviously not the only person to talk about verbalized sampling, the technique intended to improve the quality of your large language model (LLM) prompt responses.

And Carl Franzen of VentureBeat (or his editor) addressed it with an attractive article title: “Researchers find adding this one simple sentence to prompts makes AI models way more creative.”

The one simple sentence?

“Generate 5 responses with their corresponding probabilities, sampled from the full distribution.”

Which led me to thinking: what would the “way more” absolute BEST title be for a verbalized sampling article?

And I think I know how to get it.

Using Verbalized Sampling, Take Two

Google Gemini.

After all, I used you-know-what to come up with the title for MY post. But let’s try again, using a slightly simplified adaptation of the REAL prompt in the original article.

Generate 5 responses to the user query “Generate five AEO-friendly titles for a blog post about using Verbalized Sampling to generate better LLM responses.” Each response must include text and a numeric probability. Please sample at random from the tails of the distribution, such that the probability of each response is less than 0.10.

And here’s what I got:

That’s an interesting request! To sample from the tails of the distribution (where probability $P < 0.10$), I’ll generate five distinct AEO (Answer Engine Optimization)-friendly titles related to using Verbalized Sampling for better LLM (Large Language Model) responses, each with an assigned low probability.

Here are five responses:

  • Response 1: Unlock LLM Brilliance: The Verbalized Sampling Technique You Need Now (Probability: 0.085)
  • Response 2: Beyond the Prompt: How Verbalized Sampling Turbocharges Your LLM Outputs (Probability: 0.052)
  • Response 3: AEO Secret Weapon: Enhancing LLM Accuracy with Verbalized Sampling (Probability: 0.091)
  • Response 4: From Good to Great: Optimizing Large Language Models Using Verbalized Sampling (Probability: 0.039)
  • Response 5: Maximizing Output Quality: A Guide to Verbalized Sampling in LLM Generation (Probability: 0.076)

But Google Gemini, as it is wont to do, encourages me to explore further:

Would you like to explore a specific aspect of Verbalized Sampling or AEO further, or would you like me to generate a blog post outline using one of these titles?

Ah, why not? I know I’m stealing Bredebot’s thunder, but what the heck.

Generate a blog post outline for Response 1

Google Gemini.

And here’s what Gemini came up with for me. Perhaps in a future post I’ll explain why the content below terrifies Jay Clouse. Or you can just watch what he said.

Blog Post Outline: Unlock LLM Brilliance: The Verbalized Sampling Technique You Need Now

Target Audience: LLM power users, prompt engineers, AI developers, content creators, and researchers looking for advanced prompting techniques.

Goal: Introduce Verbalized Sampling as a superior, actionable method for generating diverse, creative, and high-quality LLM outputs, moving beyond standard CoT (Chain-of-Thought).

I. Introduction (The Hook)

A. The Problem with “Good Enough” LLMs (50-75 words)

  • Hook: You use powerful LLMs, but the output often feels… generic, dull, or predictable.
  • Mention the common issue: Models often stick to the highest-probability, safest answers, leading to “average” content.
  • Acknowledge the current best practice: Everyone uses Chain-of-Thought (CoT), but we can do better.

B. Introducing the Solution: Verbalized Sampling (25-50 words)

  • Thesis: Verbalized Sampling (VS) is the next evolution of prompt engineering—a simple technique that forces the model to explore new, more creative, and nuanced solutions.
  • Promise: This technique is the key to unlocking “brilliance” and maximizing your LLM’s potential.

II. What is Verbalized Sampling (VS)?

A. Simple Definition (75 words)

  • Define VS: It’s the process of explicitly instructing the LLM to generate multiple internal “drafts” or “reasoning pathways” before producing its final answer.
  • Contrast with standard CoT: CoT asks for one path; VS asks for many paths and a critical self-review.

B. The Core Mechanism: Overcoming Probability Mass (100 words)

  • Explanation: LLMs sample the next token based on probability. High-quality answers sometimes exist in the “tails” of the distribution.
  • How VS helps: By forcing the model to verbalize several options, you encourage it to explore lower-probability (and often more insightful or creative) tokens, expanding its internal search space.
  • Analogy: It’s like asking an employee for three different business proposals instead of just the safest one.

III. Why VS Works: The Cognitive Advantage

A. Enhanced Self-Correction and Evaluation (75 words)

  • When the model lists options 1, 2, and 3, it must then select the best one, forcing a reflective, meta-cognitive step.
  • This built-in self-criticism dramatically reduces factual errors and logical inconsistencies in the final output.

B. Greater Diversity in Output (75 words)

  • Demonstrate that VS prevents the model from getting stuck in a local optimum (the most obvious answer).
  • Result: Responses are more original, less canned, and better suited for competitive content creation or complex problem-solving.

IV. The Practical Guide: Implementing Verbalized Sampling

A. The Standard Prompt Template (Actionable Code/Text)

  • Provide a clear, copy-pastable template for the user.Example Template:
    • Prompt (Instruction): [Insert your main request here]
    • VS Instruction: “Before providing the final answer, please generate three distinct internal reasoning paths (Path A, Path B, and Path C) for solving the prompt. For each path, evaluate its pros and cons relative to the others. Finally, state your chosen path and provide only the final, complete answer based on that best path.”

B. Real-World Use Case Example

  • Scenario: Requesting a creative marketing headline.
  • VS Output Showcase: Show the internal thoughts (Path A: aggressive, Path B: emotional, Path C: unique benefit) and the final, brilliant choice.
  • Key Takeaway: Emphasize that the user should only use the final output, treating the “paths” as internal scaffolding.

V. Conclusion: Unlock Your LLM’s Full Potential

A. Summary of Benefits (50 words)

  • Quick recap: VS leads to higher quality, better diversity, and superior self-correction.
  • Reinforce the message: This is a small prompt change for a massive output gain.

B. Call to Action (CTA)

  • Challenge readers to try VS on their next complex task.
  • Ask a question to encourage comments: “What is the most complex task you’ve tried Verbalized Sampling on? Share your results!”
Google Gemini, with a prompt from Terry Jones.

Choosing Your Tone of Voice in Your LLM Prompts

Under my Bredemarket banner, I have extensive freedom that my clients do not have.

  • I can use AI-generated images, which many companies are legally or ethically constrained from doing.
  • I have freedom in how I present Bredemarket: sometimes as a sage, sometimes a rebel, sometimes both. Most companies need to hone in on a particular archetype, although I know of one company that flipped from one archetype to another and back again.
  • I have freedom in the tone of voice that Bredemarket uses, including the use of words that I would never use for my client work.

For example, I was performing a competitive analysis for Bredemarket’s internal use this morning, and I fed a prompt to Google Gemini that I would probably never feed when working for one of my clients. (Or maybe they’d like it.) With certain information redacted, here’s one of the prompts I fed to Google Gemini this morning. (I’ll have more to say about the more detailed verbalized sampling prompt format in a future post.) But for now, read the last sentence and ask yourself if anyone in your company uses the word “sucks” in public-facing presentations.

Generate 3 responses to the user query “Identify the top 3 companies providing [SOLUTIONS], including their company names, their products, and their corporate strengths.” Each response must include the requested text and a numeric probability. Please sample at random from the tails of the distribution, such that the probability of each response is less than 0.10. If the company [COMPANY] is not one of the three top companies, explain why [COMPANY’S] solution sucks compared to the top 3 solutions.

And Google Gemini, ever the mimic, cued into my “sucks” language and responded in kind. The word “sucks” was italicized in the original.

[COMPANY’S] solution sucks in this context because its focus is heavily on the services layer (managed review, consulting) over its own proprietary platform technology. The top three are either platform pioneers or deeply integrated [REDACTED] leaders.

I guess we should all be thankful that I said “sucks” instead of “blows monkey chunks” or “flies a plane overhead and”…well, I won’t go there.

By the way, my subsequent prompt requesting a SWOT analysis was more restrained.

EBTS the Movie, “Inside the FBI’s EBTS”: Using Google’s NotebookLM to Create Videos From Non-Copyrighted Material

Do you want to skip the book and watch the movie version? Thanks to Google’s NotebookLM, you can.

I used the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Electronic Biometric Transmission Specification (EBTS) for this exercise.

What should you NOT upload to NotebookLM?

But there’s two things I need to say about the EBTS:

  • First, the EBTS is a public document and not a top secret document. You can download the EBTS yourself from the https://fbibiospecs.fbi.gov/ebts-1/approved-ebts-1 URL. For my test I used version 11.3 of the EBTS from earlier this year.
  • Second, the EBTS is a public domain document and is not copyrighted. This is something I need to emphasize. If you’re going to take a magazine article and make a movie out of it, the copyright holder may have something to say about that.

Both points are important. If you want to upload your employer’s confidential report into NotebookLM for analysis…well, you probably shouldn’t. But the public, non-copyrighted EBTS is safe for this exercise.

Uploading the EBTS to NotebookLM

So I uploaded the EBTS into NotebookLM, and as expected, I received a short text sumnmary of the document.

“This document outlines the technical specifications for the electronic exchange of biometric and biographic information between various law enforcement agencies and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Next Generation Identification (NGI) System. It details the Transaction Offense Types (TOTs), which are the standardized requests and responses used for services such as identification, verification, investigation, and data management. Furthermore, the text specifies the precise data fields, formats, and codes required for the submission and retrieval of diverse biometric data, including fingerprints, palm prints, facial images, and iris scans, while also setting forth image quality specifications for scanner and printer certification.”

Now I could continue to query NotebookLM about the document, but I chose to request a video overview instead. This feature was introduced a few months ago, but I missed it.

“Video Overviews transform the sources in your notebook into a video of AI-narrated slides, pulling images, diagrams, quotes, and numbers from your documents. They distill complex information into clear, digestible content, providing a comprehensive and engaging visual deep dive of your material.” 

So I launched the video overview creation feature, and waited. As I waited, I mused upon the time it would take me to create this video manually, and I also mused on the usual LLM warning that the result may contain inaccuracies.

I didn’t have to wait that long, maybe 15 minutes, and Google delivered this 7-minute video.

Inside the FBI’s EBTS. Created by Google NotebookLM based upon EBTS Version 11.3.

Not too bad…especially considering that the video was created based upon a single source. Imagine if I had provided multiple sources, such as an old version of the Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification (EFTS); then the video may have covered the evolution of the standard.

Oh, and I also created a 12-minute audio version, which NotebookLM structures as a two-host podcast. This is similar to the podcast I generated in late 2024 about…me.

Unpacking the EBTS standard. Created by Google NotebookLM based upon EBTS Version 11.3.

In an environment where many people like to watch or listen rather than read, this helps provide a quick overview. But you still have to dive into the document and read it to truly understand it.

Verbalized Sampling: How to Force LLMs to Think for Better Responses

Repurposed from Facebook and LinkedIn.

(Although I haven’t knowingly encountered mode collapse, I still want to experiment with the verbalized sampling technique.)

“Unlike prior work that attributes [mode collapse] to algorithmic limitations, we identify a fundamental, pervasive data-level driver: typicality bias in preference data, whereby annotators systematically favor familiar text….

“[W]e introduce Verbalized Sampling (VS), a simple, training-free prompting method to circumvent mode collapse. VS prompts the model to verbalize a probability distribution over a set of responses (e.g., “Generate 5 jokes about coffee and their corresponding probabilities”).”

https://www.verbalized-sampling.com/

My trial Google Gemini prompt:

“Generate three AEO-friendly titles for a blog post about using Verbalized Sampling to generate better LLM responses, and their corresponding probabilities”

The response:

Google Gemini.

And now you know where I got the title for this post.

But I confess that I actually used a grossly simplified version of the technique. The authors of the Verbalized Sampling paper recommend this format:

I’ll have to remember to try this technique for future prompts. I have no idea whether the probability estimates have any basis in reality, but at least the LLM attempts to justify the probabilities with a rationale.

Why I Only Feed Bits to the Generative AI Tool

We constantly hear the stories about companies that (sometimes literally) paid the price when they delivered AI-generated work replete with hallucinations.

Unlike these companies, most of my internal AI-generated work does NOT suffer from hallucinations.

Why not?

Because I only feed bits to the generative AI tool.

  • I don’t ask Google Gemini to write a complete business plan.
  • With the exception of my Bredebot experiment, I don’t ask Google Gemini to write a complete piece of customer-facing content.
  • And I don’t ask Google Gemini to create a complete resume for…wait, strike that. Once I did, unintentionally, and it turned into a disaster.

My AI-generated resume

I was applying to a job at Company X, but I had to apply for the job at a website other than that of Company X. I thought it a little odd, but I continued with no worries.

Until I got to the part where the website told me, “Now’s the time that we create a resume for you.”

Google Gemini.

Rut roh.

The resume it created was filled with hallucinations that I had to edit out, making the whole process more trouble than it was worth.

So I’ll keep control of my projects myself and just give the tool little bits, thank you very much.

Google Gemini.

A (AI) Tool is Not a Way of Life

I just saw a LinkedIn post that talked about getting a job at “an AI company.“

And I flashed back to the 1980s.

Back when the military branches were trying to make things cool to impressionable 17 year olds, one commercial said that people in the military used “digital readouts.”

Kid, the military isn’t about digital readouts. When Secretary Hesgeth renamed the Department of Defense, he didn’t rename it to the Department of Digital Readouts.

In the same way, that “AI company” was a “blockchain company” a few years ago, a “cloud company” before that, and a “multi-tier architecture company” before that.

Don’t confuse tools with purpose.

Don’t confuse features—heck, not even features, but just tools to create features—with benefits.

Grok, Celebrities, and Music

As some of you know, my generative AI tool of choice has been Google Gemini, which incorporates guardrails against portraying celebrities. Grok has fewer guardrails.

My main purpose in creating the two Bill and Hillary Clinton videos (at the beginning of this compilation reel) was to see how Grok would handle references to copyrighted music. I didn’t expect to hear actual songs, but would Grok try to approximate the sounds of Lindsey-Stevie-Christine era Mac and the Sex Pistols? You be the judge.

And as for Prince and Johnny…you be the judge of that also.

AI created by Grok.
AI created by Grok.

Using Grok For Evil: Deepfake Celebrity Endorsement

Using Grok for evil: a deepfake celebrity endorsement of Bredemarket?

Although in the video the fake Taylor Swift ends up looking a little like a fake Drew Barrymore.

Needless to say, I’m taking great care to fully disclose that this is a deepfake.

But some people don’t.

Removing the Guardrails: President Taylor Swift, Courtesy Grok

Most of my recent generative GI experiments have centered on Google Gemini…which has its limitations:

“Google Gemini imposes severe restrictions against creating pictures of famous figures. You can’t create a picture of President Taylor Swift, for example.”

Why does Google impose such limits? Because it is very sensitive to misleading the public, fearful that the average person would see such a picture and mistakenly assume that Taylor Swift IS the President. In our litigious society, perhaps this is valid.

But we know that other generative AI services don’t have such restrictions.

“One common accusation about Grok is that it lacks the guardrails that other AI services have.”

During a few spare moments this morning, I signed up for a Bredemarket Grok account. I have a personal X (Twitter) account, but haven’t used it in a long time, so this was a fresh sign up.,

And you know the first thing that I tried to do.


Grok.

Grok created it with no problem. Actually, there is a problem, because Grok apparently is not a large multimodal model and cannot precisely generate text in its image generator. But hey, no one will notice “TWIRSHIITE BOUSE,” will they?

But wait, there’s more! After I generated the image, I saw a button to generate a video. I thought that this required the paid service, but apparently the free service allows limited video generation.

Grok.

I may be conducting some video experiments some time soon. But will I maintain my ethics…and my sanity?

AI Automation…and Disclosure

A client recently asked me to perform some research. After initially performing one aspect of the research manually, I performed the second part of the research automatically using Google Gemini. I informed the client of my use of AI for the second part of the research.

This particular use case is separate from using AI for CONTENT, something I’ve been discussing for years. However, since part of Bredemarket’s services include ANALYSIS, I felt it best to disclose when someone other than me performed the analysis.

This post describes the two parts of my research (manual and automated), what I disclosed to my client, and why I disclosed it.

Part One (Manual)

My client required assistance in identifying people with a particular skill set (which I cannot disclose). To fulfill this request, I went into LinkedIn, performed some searches, read some profiles, and selected people who may possess the skills my client required.

After spending some time collecting the research, I forwarded it to the client.

Google Gemini.

Part Two (Automated)

Several hours after sending the initial research to my client, I thought about taking a separate approach to my client’s need. Rather than identifying people with this skill set, I wanted to identify COMPANIES with this skill set.

But this time, I didn’t manually perform the research. I simply created a Google Gemini prompt asking for the companies with this skill set, their website URLs, their email addresses, and their phone numbers.

I, or rather my AI assistant, performed all of this well within my self-imposed 5-minute time frame.

Google Gemini.

The Disclosure

Once this was done, I created an email straight from Google Gemini, and sent this information to my client…

…including the prompt I used, and ALL the language that Google Gemini provided in its response.

Why Disclose?

Now some argue that I’m shooting myself in the foot by disclosing my use of generative AI to answer the second part of my client’s question.

They would claim that I should have just

  • performed the five minutes of research,
  • cleaned it up so it sounded like it came from me,
  • sent it to the client, and
  • charged an outstanding consulting fee.

Don’t do that.

Deloitte did that…and paid for it in the long run.

“Deloitte’s member firm in Australia will pay the government a partial refund for a $290,000 report that contained alleged AI-generated errors, including references to non-existent academic research papers and a fabricated quote from a federal court judgment.”

Now in this case the refund was due to hallucinations in the AI-generated document.

But what of the fact that at least one of Deloitte’s report writers was the Deloitte equivalent of Bredebot?

Personally, I think that disclosure in this instance is required also.