Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s a plausible example of what an explanation of “how it actually works” would be? Like even a wrong example, but following the rough syntax or shape of what a correct answer would look like? It doesn’t seem all that different to me than the CS textbook examples of simple neural networks that recognize images with a very low resolution grid of black-or-white pixels. Is there even a “how it actually works” beyond…
This feels like giving up and accepting that LLMs are just magic - or "emergence" to use a modern term which is practically used in the same sense. I think there are a few practical questions which we can use to gauge the level of understanding we have: Do we know which parts of the architecture and the training process are actually essential and which can be left away? Do we know which of the weights are essential?…
I don’t intend to persuade any interested person to give up on any pursuit of knowledge. It does seem like there’s a lot we don’t understand, but to me it feels like figuring out what kind of answer we’re looking for is a pretty important first step.
And, while it might not be the case here, I think there are places in a chain of inquiry where simply asking “okay, but how is it really working” stops being meaningful. Like would you ask that once you’ve thoroughly studied an algorithm like insertion sort? “Oh I fully understand every line of code, how the compiler works, how the assembly code works, and even how the semiconductors work, but I still want to know how insertion sort actually works to sort an array of integers.”