Live data from Hacker News

I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

grumpy-economist.com

91–100 of 275 posts

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had Claude help me get a program written for Linux to compile on macOS. The program is written in a programming language the author invented for the project, a pretty unusual one (for example, it allows spaces in variable names). Claude figured out how the language worked and debugged segfaults until the compiler compiled, and then until the program did. That might not be magic , but it shows a level of sophisticat…

But the programming language has explicitly laid out rules. It was not trained on those sets of rules, but it was trained on many trillions of lines of code. It has a map of how programs work, and an explanation of this new language. It's using training data and data it's fed to generate that result.

What doesn't that explain tho?

What behavior would you need to see for that explanation to no longer hold? Because it seems like it explains too much.

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#92
post #59
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“predict the next token” is not a useful way That is the exact thing to say because that is exactly what it does, despite how it does so. It is not useful to say it if you are an AI-shill though. You bought up AI-hater, so I think I am entitled to bring up AI-shills.

My neurons are also just passing electric signals back and forward and exchanging water and salts with the rest of my body.

> just passing electric signals back and forward

Ok, feel free to call yourselves a toaster, I don't mind!

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#93
A while ago i did the nanogpt tutorial, i went through some math with pen and paper and noticed the loss function for 'predict the next token' and 'predict the next 2 tokens' (or n tokens) is identical.

That was a bit of a shock to me so wanted to share this thought. Basically i think its not unreasonable to say llms are trained to predict the next book instead of single token.

Hope this is usefull to someone.

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#95

The whole next word thing is interesting isn't it. I like to see it with Dennett's "Competence and comprehension" lens. You can predict the next word competently with shallow understanding. But you could also do it well with understanding or comprehension of the full picture. A mental model that allows you to predict better. Are the AIs stumbling into these mental models? Seems like it. However, because these are suc…

It's honestly disheartening and a bit shocking how everyone has started repeating the predict the next syllable criticism.

The language model predicts the next syllable by FIRST arriving in a point in space that represents UNDERSTANDING of the input language. This was true all the way back in 2017 at the time of Attention Is All You Need. Google had a beautiful explainer page of how transformers worked, which I am struggling to find. Found it. https://research.google/blog/transformer-a-novel-neural-netw...

The example was and is simple and perfect. The word bank exists. You can tell what bank means by its proximity to words, such as river or vault. You compare bank to every word in a sentence to decide which bank it is. Rinse, repeat. A lot. You then add all the meanings together. Language models are making a frequency association of every word to every other word, and then summing it to create understanding of complex ideas, even if it doesn't understand what it is understanding and has never seen it before.

That all happens BEFORE "autocompleting the next syllable."

The magic part of LLMs is understanding the input. Being able to use that to make an educated guess of what comes next is really a lucky side effect. The fact that you can chain that together indefinitely with some random number generator thrown in and keep saying new things is pretty nifty, but a bit of a show stealer.

What really amazes me about transformers is that they completely ignored prescriptive linguistic trees and grammar rules and let the process decode the semantic structure fluidly and on the fly. (I know google uses encode/decode backwards from what I am saying here.) This lets people create crazy run on sentences that break every rule of english (or your favorite language) but instructions that are still parsable.

It is really helpful to remember that transformers origins are language translation. They are designed to take text and apply a modification to it, while keeping the meaning static. They accomplish this by first decoding meaning. The fact that they then pivoted from translation to autocomplete is a useful thing to remember when talking to them. A task a language model excels at is taking text, reducing it to meaning, and applying a template. So a good test might be "take Frankenstein, and turn it into a magic school bus episode." Frankenstein is reduced to meaning, the Magic School Bus format is the template, the meaning is output in the form of the template. This is a translation, although from English to English, represented as two completely different forms. Saying "find all the Wild Rice recipes you can, normalize their ingredients to 2 cups of broth, and create a table with ingredient ranges (min-max) for each ingredient option" is closer to a translation than it is to "autocomplete." Input -> Meaning -> Template -> Output. With my last example the template itself is also generated from its own meaning calculation.

A lot has changed since 2017, but the interpreter being the real technical achievement still holds true imho. I am more impressed with AI's ability to parse what I am saying than I am by it's output (image models not withstanding.)

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#96
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, that's why I asked b/c I always see a lot of empty platitudes when it comes to LLM praise so I'm curious to see if people can actually back up their claims. I haven't done any 3D modeling so I'll take your word for it but I can tell you that I am working on a very simple interpreter & bytecode compiler for a subset of Erlang & I have yet to see anything novel or even useful from any of the coding assist…

Which agents are you using, and are you using them in an agent mode (Codex, Claude Code etc.)? The difference in quality of output between Claude Sonnet and Claude Opus is around an order of magnitude. The results that you can get from agent mode vs using a chat bot are around two orders of magnitude.

The workflow is not the issue. You are welcome to try the same challenge yourself if you want. Extra test cases (https://drive.proton.me/urls/6Z6557R2WG#n83c6DP6mDfc) & specification (https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/5581b499-a471-4d58-8e05-1...). I know enough about compilers, bytecode VMs, parsers, & interpreters to know that this is well within the capabilities of any reasonably good software engineer but the implementation from Gemini 3.1 Pro (high & low) & Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) have been less than impressive.

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#97
post #93

A while ago i did the nanogpt tutorial, i went through some math with pen and paper and noticed the loss function for 'predict the next token' and 'predict the next 2 tokens' (or n tokens) is identical. That was a bit of a shock to me so wanted to share this thought. Basically i think its not unreasonable to say llms are trained to predict the next book instead of single token. Hope this is usefull to someone.

I'd like to explore this idea, did you make a blog post about it? is it simple enough to post in the reply?

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#98
post #95

The whole next word thing is interesting isn't it. I like to see it with Dennett's "Competence and comprehension" lens. You can predict the next word competently with shallow understanding. But you could also do it well with understanding or comprehension of the full picture. A mental model that allows you to predict better. Are the AIs stumbling into these mental models? Seems like it. However, because these are suc…

It's honestly disheartening and a bit shocking how everyone has started repeating the predict the next syllable criticism. The language model predicts the next syllable by FIRST arriving in a point in space that represents UNDERSTANDING of the input language. This was true all the way back in 2017 at the time of Attention Is All You Need. Google had a beautiful explainer page of how transformers worked, which I am st…

>represents UNDERSTANDING of the input language.

It does not have an understanding, it pattern matches the "idea shape" of words in the "idea space" of training data and calculates the "idea shape" that is likely to follow considering all the "idea shape" patterns in its training data.

It mimics understanding. It feels mysterious to us because we cannot imagine the mapping of a corpus of text to this "idea space".

It is quite similar to how mysterious a computer playing a movie can appear, if you are not aware of mapping of movie to a set of pictures, pictures to pixels, and pixels to co-ordinates and colors codes.

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#99

The whole next word thing is interesting isn't it. I like to see it with Dennett's "Competence and comprehension" lens. You can predict the next word competently with shallow understanding. But you could also do it well with understanding or comprehension of the full picture. A mental model that allows you to predict better. Are the AIs stumbling into these mental models? Seems like it. However, because these are suc…

Given their failure on novel logic problems, generation of meaningless text, tendency to do things like delete tests and incompetence at simple mathematics, it seems very unlikely they have built any sort of world model. It’s remarkable how competent they are given the way they work. Predict the next word is a terrible summary of what these machines do though, they certainly do more than that, but there are significa…

Probably worth remembering that ELIZA passed Turing tests, and was the definition of shallow prediction.

Re: I don't know how you get here from “predict the next word”

#100

The whole next word thing is interesting isn't it. I like to see it with Dennett's "Competence and comprehension" lens. You can predict the next word competently with shallow understanding. But you could also do it well with understanding or comprehension of the full picture. A mental model that allows you to predict better. Are the AIs stumbling into these mental models? Seems like it. However, because these are suc…

It always occurred to me that LLMs may be like the language center of the brain. And there should be a "whole damn rest of the brain" behind it to steer it.

LLMs miss very important concepts, like the concept of a fact. There is no "true", just consensus text on the internet given a certain context. Like that study recently where LLMs gave wrong info if there was the biography of a poor person in the context.

Post reply on HN