51–60 of 307 posts
> Calling the second system a “next-move predictor” would be strange. It is not trying to predict what move appeared next in a dataset. It is trying to choose a move that wins. i dont understand the distinction here. does working backwards from a set of win states instead of working forwards from the current state somehow change whether it’s a prediction or not?
A better statement might be: Current agentic systems may be *built* from next-token predictors which are conceptually simple, but because of agentic frameworks, recursive invocation, tool use, and *heavy* investment in reinforcement learning in these contexts and for specific applications, they can no longer be thought of as "Merely" next token predictors. Modern agentic work is probably more of a "emergent system fr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time, it ... is literally a next token predictor. Like that's what it is. The input is a sequence of tokens. The output is a probability distribution of next tokens.
It is. And human beings are bags of chemicals. But for many purposes you will not find it helpful to think of human beings as bags of chemicals, and for many purposes you will not find it helpful to think of LLMs as next-token predictors.
But when we talk about humans, we're not talking about the chemicals involved in those humans.
When we talk about LLMs, the tokens are the valuable thing they produce for us. We want LLMs because they give us sequences of tokens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don’t understand how it can know that a token is correct. It can't. The next token is just the most statistically probably given the context (at least in transformers). Try a very small/weak model in your own machine and more often than not it would get stuck repeating the same word or even just output garbage. Because after training and quantization (where some information is lost), that's the most probable next…
classical particles obey deterministic state evolution rules, yet put 10 in a box and you cannot say where they will be 5 minutes later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is a next token predictor. Recursively invoked. With carefully selected context. And massive investment in RL to tune token selection. And the ability to use cli tools on other folks' machines. That's a powerful system built around a conceptually simple technology: Next token predictors.
Yes this is correct. The thing is not about the term next-token predictor being correct, but because of the connotative weight of that phrase as a implicit trivialization of LLM abilities, which is how it is often used.
Sure, I get the gist of the article. I have never liked the reductionist argument that LLMs are nothing more than next-token predictors. By that rational, the human brain is really not that much different. When I am having a conversation with another person, I do not usually have every word I will respond with stored in my limited working memory. My output is often predicted based on the previous word I spoke.
People don't know exactly the words that they're going to say necessarily, but tend to start with a general concept of what they're trying to communicate and only then try to put together the words (sometimes out of order). LLMs do not begin with any sort of concept they're trying to express. LLMs are simulations that attempt to reproduce what an average person might say while wired up to a huge knowledgebase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imply that there is some fundamental limit on their capacities This is a wildly dismissive statement that does a lot of heavy lifting. Your assertion is that we just happened to hit on a methodology that has no limitations between being an encyclopedia with a novel human language interface and, I guess by implication, AGI? That seems more outrageous a claim than the one you're dismissing.
I don't think it's outrageous when many of the people who claimed it was a next-token predictor have been proven wrong repeatedly over the past 5 years. There were people years ago who claims AI could never answer questions like "what would happen to a ball on a table if I moved the table" correctly because its text-base world model could never intuit physics, or that it could never do math or code accurately. When I…
A pure next-token language model won't be able to give detailed instructions to an ensemble of motors, mimicking a human body, to do a wide variety of tasks our human brain is excellent at doing, for example, inserting keys into a car, opening the door, sitting down, starting the car, putting the car in reverse, and exit a parking lot, being careful not to hit anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. And human beings are bags of chemicals. But for many purposes you will not find it helpful to think of human beings as bags of chemicals, and for many purposes you will not find it helpful to think of LLMs as next-token predictors.
> But for many purposes you will not find it helpful to think of human beings as bags of chemicals But when we talk about humans, we're not talking about the chemicals involved in those humans. When we talk about LLMs, the tokens are the valuable thing they produce for us. We want LLMs because they give us sequences of tokens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time, it ... is literally a next token predictor. Like that's what it is. The input is a sequence of tokens. The output is a probability distribution of next tokens.
Vacuous, like calling a V8 a “next piston firing predictor” because engines are designed so that one piston sets up the next in the firing order and technically there’s some nonzero probability any piston can (mis)fire next. It’s missing two pieces: 1. Useful work that has been done (the previously generated token sequence :: the mechanical work already accomplished) 2. The role of structure in relation to the applic…
The output of the LLM is literally a probability distribution of what the most likely next token is.