Live data from Hacker News

Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

github.com

121–130 of 396 posts

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#122

You can also make huge spelling mistakes and use incomplete words with llms they just sem to know better than any spl chk wht you mean. I use such speak to cut my time spent typing to them.

Wouldn't this increase your token usage because the tokenizer now can't process whole words, but it needs to go letter by letter?

It doesn't go letter by letter, so not with current tokenizers.

There will likely be some internal reasoning going "I wonder if the user meant spell check, I'm gonna go with that one".

And it'll also bias the reasoning and output to internet speak instead of what you'd usually want, such as code or scientific jargon, which used to decrease output quality. I'm not sure if it still does

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#124
post #74
post #5

Oh boy. Someone didn't get the memo that for LLMs, tokens are units of thinking . I.e. whatever feat of computation needs to happen to produce results you seek, it needs to fit in the tokens the LLM produces. Being a finite system, there's only so much computation the LLM internal structure can do per token, so the more you force the model to be concise, the more difficult the task becomes for it - worst case, you ca…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#125
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my first thought too -- instead of talk like a caveman you could turn off reasoning, with probably better results. Additionally, LLMs do not actually operate in text; much of the thinking happens in a much higher dimensional space that just happens to be decoded as text. So unless the LLM was trained otherwise, making it talk like a caveman is more than just theoretically turning it into a caveman.

> much of the thinking happens in a much higher dimensional space that just happens to be decoded as text. What do you mean by that? It’s literally text prediction, isn’t it?

It is text prediction. But to predict text, other things follow that need to be calculated. If you can step back just a minute, i can provide a very simple but adjacent idea that might help to intuit the complexity of “ text prediction “ .

I have a list of numbers, 0 to9, and the + , = operators. I will train my model on this dataset, except the model won’t get the list, they will get a bunch of addition problems. A lot. But every addition problem possible inside that space will not be represented, not by a long shot, and neither will every number. but still, the model will be able to solve any math problem you can form with those symbols.

It’s just predicting symbols, but to do so it had to internalize the concepts.

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice that the number of people confidently talking about "burden of proof" and whose it allegedly is in the context of AI has gone up sharply. Nobody has to proof anything. It can give your claim credibility. If you don't provide any, an opposing claim without proof does not get any better.

Sorry I don't know how engaging in this could lead to anything productive. There's already literature out there that gives credence to TeMPOraL claim. And, after a certain point, gravity being the reason that things fall becomes so self evident that every re-statements doesnt not require proof.

LLM quirks are not something all humans have been experiencing for thousands of years

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#127
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Can't you know that tokens are units of thinking just by... like... thinking about how models work?

Can't you just know that the earth is the center of the world by... like... just looking at how the world works?

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#129
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I don't think that "I'd be happy to help you with that" or "Sure, let me take a look at that for you" carries much useful signal that can be used for the next tokens.

There is a study that shows that what the model is doing behind the scenes in those cases is a lot more than just outputting those tokens. For an LLM, tokens are thought. They have no ability to think, by whatever definition of that word you like, without outputting something . The token only represents a tiny fraction of the internal state changes made when a token is output. Clearly there is an optimal for each tas…

[flagged]

Re: Caveman: Why use many token when few token do trick

#130
post #74
post #5

Oh boy. Someone didn't get the memo that for LLMs, tokens are units of thinking . I.e. whatever feat of computation needs to happen to produce results you seek, it needs to fit in the tokens the LLM produces. Being a finite system, there's only so much computation the LLM internal structure can do per token, so the more you force the model to be concise, the more difficult the task becomes for it - worst case, you ca…

[flagged]

Let’s see, I think these pretty much map out a little chronology of the research:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00114 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06467 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758 https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.12777

First that scratchpads matter, then why they matter, then that they don’t even need to be meaningful tokens, then a conceptual framework for the whole thing.

Post reply on HN