Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blog post itself says one thing, but then demonstrates the exact thing they’re arguing against. If you can’t grasp that logic gap then there’s no point discussing further.
I try to make 3 claims in the post, it was a bit clumsy I'll admit that. 1. At inference time, LLMs emit one token at a time given the prior tokens. This looks like prediction and I concede that. 2. During pre-training, LLMs predict the next token and compare to the actual next token in the training data. This is the classic setting for ML predictions. And I think its meaningful, the model really is predicting what t…
“Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
321–330 of 336 posts
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that “it doesn’t check the accuracy of the prediction against the data” is a non-response, because no one calling it a “next-token predictor” is making the claim that it does do that or that they’re calling it a next-token predictor because it does that.
Many people are in fact claiming the thing you are saying they are not - even if you are not. The reason they are claiming it is that it was true at one point, and most intro courses/blog posts/videos still describe them that way and then hand wave some "other stuff at the end". You can even see a comment here that refers to the gpt-2 paper. LLMs were trained to predict the next token, produced a distribution to do s…
My original comment said “no one here.” Please show me where someone in the comments here is claiming that.
> Why the desperation to hang onto the word "prediction"?
No desperation here. It’s just a word that conveniently describes (especially to laypeople) what’s going on, even if it may not be the most mathematically correct or rigorous word to describe what’s going on. I think you’re being needlessly pedantic.
Why the desperation to refute it?
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it sounds like this is just a disagreement about what the word "next" means. I agree with you that "next" just means "the one about to come", and if the underlying model works by using some prediction mechanism to determine that, then it's by definition a next-token predictor. Disagreeing with that on the basis that the "next" token isn't necessarily in the training data verbatim just seems like an overly stric…
I think it’s a disagreement about what ‘predict’ means. The OP is arguing against people who think that an LLM is ‘predicting’ what token would likely follow if the text preceding were found among the corpus it was originally trained on . Instead it is ‘predicting’ what token would follow if the text were found among really good examples of the text it has being reinforced to produce - be that ‘chats with a helpful a…
It's both. Generation in a predictive way. That's what G and P in GPT stand for.
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brush up :) The policy is optimized to maximize the the total reward, defined as the sum of the reward at each step, discounted by some factor.
Alright, I'll have to check up on that. Thanks for being nice about it.
To maximize its expected return it has to predict that taking action α in state s in time step t will produce state s' and reward r in time step t+1. Which btw it can predict by estimating a value function that sums over the expected return from time step t onwards. The value function essentially tells the policy what state it wants to be in and what action to take to get to that state, in order to eventually achieve its goal (represented by max cumulative reward at the end of an episode).
So, yes, like you say, the whole policy is a game result predictor but the decision making process is a next-move predictor. The policy must make the locally optimal decisions to get to the globally optimal result, if I may be so bold. It's the same problem with a different solution as in heuristic search, except you have a reward function instead of a heuristic cost function.
Sutton & Barto 2ed is free here btw:
https://web.stanford.edu/class/psych209/Readings/SuttonBarto...
The value function stuff is in Section 3.7. Now if someone could explain the grid world example in Figure 3.5 to me that would be great because I'm very confused about the fact that any action at state A or B takes the agent to state A' or B' respectively, since those are not even adjacent to A and B. I'll go ask chat I suppose.
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The question being originally asked is whether "next-token predicton" is the right mental model for an RL-trained model, Regardless, the statement being challenged here is "still next-token prediction, then". > and I think the answer is no - not only is it not technically correct It is correct. RL simply adjusts weights - with no effect beyond an equivalent adjustment to the corpus itself. Hence "next-token predict…
> why do you find "next token predictor" to be the most useful mental model? To me it is an accurate description of the algorithm. And a sufficient explanation for the behaviour. So I don't need it or anything else as a mental model. I accept this does not suffice for people who cannot comprehend the huge amount of processing and data the empowers it. Lacking a factual understanding, they reach for any mental model a…
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to build a car to understand one. That you tie yourself up in knots of fancy acronyms instead of plain words and that your argument boils down to semantics of the word prediction, it's pretty clear what is up brother.
Lol, sure, just read a blog post and you'll understand how a car works....It's very simple....
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#327I understand how a computer can know that a chess move is more likely to lead to a win, and therefore “correct”, but I don’t understand how it can know that a token is correct. Can someone explain?
It's not correct or not, it's a gradient based on the reward signal.
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#328To be honest, I believe I get the point the article is trying to make, and to an extent I agree, but I also think the point is not really made very well. The core of the argument as I understood it is that LLMs aren't just using existing data is training but also new ones. That's fine and good, and you can't simply assume an LLM is simply mashing together all it's data to give you an average of all that got fed into…
Maybe I'm wrong - but I see LLMs are a "next-token predictor" as somewhat equivalent to brains are a "bag of molecules". Both systems have emergent behavior that goes well beyond what would naively be expected.
Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#329Re: “Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright, I'll have to check up on that. Thanks for being nice about it.
Hey man, I'm not crazy. Yes, the goal is to maximize the cumulative reward like you say but to do that a policy (agent) has to take the actions that maximize its expected return in each time step. That's what the discount factor applies to, the expected return. To maximize its expected return it has to predict that taking action α in state s in time step t will produce state s' and reward r in time step t+1. Which bt…
And, the expected return from a state is often estimated rather than an explicit trajectory run out all the way. A value function can estimate expected return without explicitly predicting the future states or individual rewards that make up that return.
Fwiw, I use the phrase "total reward" above and use it as a synonym for "return", which is lazy use of language too.