Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why can't transformers learn multiplication?

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 111 posts

Re: Why can't transformers learn multiplication?

#4

Post by daxfohl »

The chains-of-thought here are artificially constructed, very information-dense partial sums formatted in a specific way that guides the fine tuning. A potential next step would be to look at real-world chains-of-thought and see whether some process could start with those and achieve the same result. Then you could really have a self-improving system!

Also I wonder if the LLM "knows" that it has this capability after fine-tuning. If it encounters multiplication as part of some larger chain-of-thought, will it solve that internally, or will it continue to do it step-by-step in the chain-of-thought?

Re: Why can't transformers learn multiplication?

#5

Post by jerf »

This is a gut impression and I don't deny it, but LLMs are Large Language Models, and in my own brain, my Language Model isn't doing large-scale multiplication. I have a language-based intuition for the sigle-digit multiplication table and a touch beyond (and based on my observations that's already above average for a human Language Model, at least in my age peer group), but it's not my Language Model doing 283 times 9284. That requires a symbolic manipulation model, and in fact I would observe that my personal neural net, for all the things it is amazingly good at, is in fact quite terrible at that sort of multiplication too. A Commodore PET is by all measures vastly, vastly simpler than my brain, but it blows away my multiplication capabilities. And then the symbolic systems tacked on another, what, 15 orders of magnitude from that "blows away my multiplication capabilities"? Depends on how you count, but something like that.

You can sit here and force me to recite ("train me on") multi-digit multiplication problems and their result until the day I die, and my language model is only going to get marginally better. It is in practicing my symbolic manipulation that I'm going to get better and faster.

It seems to me that expecting a Language Model to be very good at multiplication is asking for a substantially superhuman level of performance from them, and one that we have little reason to believe will scale anyhow. What we need is symbolic manipulation, better than the approximation they achieve when "reasoning".

I find it rather ironic to sit here and use the aforementioned 15 orders of magnitude improvement over the Commodore PET to use that level of symbolic manipulation firepower to laboriously recreate a software system that is as bad as we are at multiplication for what may well be the same fundamental reasons... and then have the audacity to complain about it. My metaphorical dude, you did a couple trillion multiplications just to get to this single bad multiplication output... maybe another approach is called for.

Re: Why can't transformers learn multiplication?

#6

Post by suddenlybananas »

jerf wrote: post #5

This is a gut impression and I don't deny it, but LLMs are Large Language Models, and in my own brain, my Language Model isn't doing large-scale multiplication. I have a language-based intuition for the sigle-digit multiplication table and a touch beyond (and based on my observations that's already above average for a human Language Model, at least in my age peer group), but it's not my Language Model doing 283 times…

Language _is_ the symbolic manipulation system par excellence though.

Re: Why can't transformers learn multiplication?

#9

Post by jerf »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #6
jerf wrote: post #5

This is a gut impression and I don't deny it, but LLMs are Large Language Models, and in my own brain, my Language Model isn't doing large-scale multiplication. I have a language-based intuition for the sigle-digit multiplication table and a touch beyond (and based on my observations that's already above average for a human Language Model, at least in my age peer group), but it's not my Language Model doing 283 times…

Language _is_ the symbolic manipulation system par excellence though.

There's equivocation in that statement, though, whether you meant there to be or not. There is clearly a difference in how we manipulate English words for normal human activities and the symbolic manipulation with very strict rules we today associate with mathematics and computer science. Human language goes back thousands of years, into the indefinite past we can't track past. Symbolic manipulation is a much, much more recent development, starting only ~2300 years ago around Euclid and not really coming into full development until much later... you can argue about exactly when it is but I'd personally put it as late as the 19th century for it to be recognized in the modern sense. It must be something different if separated by that many centuries.

To disprove my point, please generate a list of 5 random 5-digit numbers and demonstrate multiplying them in your head as quickly as you can read them. Since you can't, clearly there is something about that that is hard for you, despite the fact that the act of reading this text, maintaining physical homeostasis while you do it, and all the other things your brain is doing as you do this represents a staggering amount of raw computation that is vastly, vastly in excess of what is nominally needed to achieve that computation.

Re: Why can't transformers learn multiplication?

#10

Post by nico »

Would love to see an architecture that learned more like humans. Start with just imitating one letter, then a few more, than some syllables, then full words, then sentences, etc. Progressively adding on top of previous knowledge

Also, it’s interesting that one of the big goals/measures of models is their capacity to “generalize”, but the training methods optimize for loss/accuracy, and only after training test for generalization to validate

Are there training methods/curriculums that explicitly maximize generalization?

Post reply on HN