Live data from Hacker News

Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

andrewmayne.com

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#191
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But humans know when "is" means equal.

It only takes two humans getting it correct once for your statement to be technically true though, demonstrating how easily seemingly innocuous and straightforward language can be misleading. The opposite statement, humans don't know when "is" means equal is also a true statement, perhaps even more true.

But you wouldn't think of the latter group of humans as the next big thing for many important tasks.

I doubt MS would put their service in lot of their products.

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#192
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that the category of things we call apple also belongs to the category of things that are red No, in English this would be “apples are red”, not “the apple is red”.

I don't disagree though perhaps it's worth mentioning that sentences such as "the great spotted woodpecker is a medium-sized woodpecker" are used in English with the meaning "great spotted woodpeckers are medium-sized woodpeckers" so it seems to me that "apples are red" is grammatically a possible meaning of "the apple is red" even if it would be stylistically and pragmatically so weird that nobody would ever do that…

grammatically you'd capitalize Great Spotted Woodpecker, and similarly if speaking of all apples as a category, Apple should form a proper noun

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean transformers are definitely sequentially biased. There's also human speech bias. But I think it's pretty clear that humans are generally invariant to this kind of prompting as well (given that they have the knowledge. More in a different comment). My surprisal is far higher that the reversal "curse" is considered controversial or even surprising than it was when that sensational tweet dropped. It feels pretty…

>But I think it's pretty clear that humans are generally invariant to this kind of prompting as well (given that they have the knowledge. More in a different comment). I think anyone who's used Anki to learn anything will tell you reversal is by no means free. 고양이 on the front deck, Cat on the back. You can see this direction and remember cat is the correct answer every single time but completely blank in the other d…

Sure, definitely not "free" and why I say nearly invariant. But that is also a different condition that what I was attempting to express. What I was trying to say is under a condition where you already know 고양이 means cat, then the reverse should not be too difficult (though certainly not completely invariant as all language learners know that made up silly phrase half direct translation thing).

Conditions I mean: 고양이 => ; cat => ; either [고양이 => cat || cat => 고양이]. Under these conditions 고양이 == cat && cat == 고양이 should be known.

Your conditions: 고양이 ~> ; cat => ; [ 고양이 -> cat && cat ~> ...고양이?] (or something, trying to express you're preferentially learned one direction, usually mapping back to mother tongue while learning)

By no means are we strictly invariant. But I'd say that a good measure of your skills are in fact to be invariant. But also like you are pointing out, we also kinda train ourselves that way because it creates stronger pathways. Training methods are important too! And augmentation is critical to both human learning and machine learning. They're specifically critical to generalization abilities. You'll also see this in humans. I notice test focused educations tend (there's no "always") to create less generalization of concepts as you're over learning a thing presented in a specific way rather than focusing on the concept as a whole. Form of metric hacking if you will.

Side note: if you have tips for an extreme beginner learning Korean I'd really appreciate them. Trying to reduce the burden on my gf having to translate everything for me when we're around other Koreans.

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean transformers are definitely sequentially biased. There's also human speech bias. But I think it's pretty clear that humans are generally invariant to this kind of prompting as well (given that they have the knowledge. More in a different comment). My surprisal is far higher that the reversal "curse" is considered controversial or even surprising than it was when that sensational tweet dropped. It feels pretty…

> But I think it's pretty clear that humans are generally invariant to this kind of prompting as well (given that they have the knowledge. More in a different comment). But are they? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, I'd say the opposite is clearly the case - learning "A is B" doesn't automatically mean learning the reversal; you either have to learn it from external source, or infer and memorize it - b…

I think this would be reasonably testable actually (at least in a simplified case). Teach someone two relations that aren't meaningful naturally. Say Apples -> black holes and octopi -> industrial fan. You give them a few minutes to learn them. Then give some other unrelated tasks and say "if black holes -> apples, then what does industrial fan imply?" I feel pretty confident that humans would be able to do decently well on this task. Obviously got to account for people simply forgetting the forward relationship though.

In the non-simplified case I'd actually say that we have some natural experiments, but that might spoil this as well because you can in fact say that this is training for such invariance (which I'm unsure is problematic to my claim but pushback is definitely welcome). If we're learning history we'd often learn information such as "On December 7th 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and this was a major event that got America directly involved in WW2." But then on the test we'd see questions such as "What important event happened December 7th 1941?", "What was the date of the Pearl Harbor attack?", "What major event led to the US becoming a direct player in the war and when did this event occur?" and so on. Granted, because we do such testing I'd expect GPT to be able to reasonably answer many of these same questions but I'm very much under the impression that humans are far more robust/generalized and would quickly learn these reversals. And to stress, conditioned on knowing the forward direction to a strong degree. If you're fuzzy about the forward direction I'm not surprised if the reversal is even more fuzzy. Definitely biased. But more importantly, I do not think we have the same strong algorithmic bias in our encoding methods that transformers have. That's my main claim, just to clarify.

But I'm conjecturing a lot here. I think these are reasonable and we have some strong evidence for this. Maybe this is more situational than I'm presuming and I'm definitely working off of biased sampling. So discussion helps refine the ideas.

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of mathematical bikeshedding, hardcoding reversability would cause far more problems than it would help. Best to simply scale log-likelihood-based training, next-token-based training trivially contains a requirement for learning all of the subproblems that predict said, next token, and hardcoding something to get warm human fuzzies would be creating a biased estimator (and move us back towards the 90s a bi…

>it's an autoregressive feature based on the entire stream of incoming tokens. Humans have a bias to focus on the 'last token used', this is not what language models look at. But human language is created for and by humans. Is not then operating on language in a categorically different manner an incorrect usage/understanding of language?

No.

For more information, please see https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#196
Right at the opening, we have a fundamental (and common) misunderstanding of what LLMs are.

When humans read the statement "A is B", we semantically transform that into a logical association. LLMs do not perform any semantics or logic.

Here's a simple example to demonstrate:

If we trained an LLM on something like "A is B C is D D is C.", we might be able expect the continuation, "B is A". If we then gave that LLM the prompt, "What is B?", we might expect the continuation, "B? is What".

Large models like GPT present more interesting continuations because they are trained on larger and more diverse datasets. More diversity also means more ambiguity, which results in continuations that are less predictable and more illogical.

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#197
post #8

I fall somewhere on the skeptic side of the LLM spectrum. But this "flaw" just does not seem to have the force that its proponents seem to think it does, unless I'm missing something significant. Simply because in the context of natural language (Rather than formal logical statements), "A is B" does not imply "B is A" in the first place. "Is" can encompass a wide variety of logical relationships in colloquial usage,…

But that's the problem isn't it? In some cases they are equivalent and in some cases they are not and a next-word-predictor needs to have "explicit" training data (i.e. it is not doing "reasoning") whereas a human can infer. This isn't surprising if you think about how the machine actually works rather than treating it like a sacred magic box. The default assumption for why there is any "success" for in-context learn…

LLMs can already reverse logical implications. Literally this is not a problem in context. The model can infere all this just fine. Even the original paper makes this clear. This is a recall from training problem, not a logical inference one.

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#198
This post isn't a scientific investigation. It's someone playing around with a black-box model with few to little controls – which is unfortunately the only thing we can do when experimenting with GPT-4, which does excuse this partially.

Unfortunately, though, the author seems unaware of the actual state of research on the actual mechanics of how LLMs store knowledge and specifically binary relations. The ROME paper[1], among others, shows that the feed-forward layers function as a key-value store, where the feed-forward's up projection of the last token in a noun phrase (say, "the Eiffel Tower") acts as a key, which when multiplied by the down projection, produces a value that contains information the model knows about the subject, which is then added into the residual stream/hidden representation.

A paper building on that work[2] then went on to show that it's usually the self-attention layers that use the relational phrase (say, "is in") to extract the relevant knowledge from the feed-forward layer's output (in this example, hopefully "Paris").

This mechanistic understanding makes it really obvious why the reversal curse occurs – using matrix multiplication as a key-value store requires having a fully separate key-value pair to look up the reversed relation.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05262 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14767v1

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But I think it's pretty clear that humans are generally invariant to this kind of prompting as well (given that they have the knowledge. More in a different comment). I think anyone who's used Anki to learn anything will tell you reversal is by no means free. 고양이 on the front deck, Cat on the back. You can see this direction and remember cat is the correct answer every single time but completely blank in the other d…

Sure, definitely not "free" and why I say nearly invariant. But that is also a different condition that what I was attempting to express. What I was trying to say is under a condition where you already know 고양이 means cat, then the reverse should not be too difficult (though certainly not completely invariant as all language learners know that made up silly phrase half direct translation thing). Conditions I mean: 고양이…

If you haven't learned Hangul, then you can learn it from this playlist - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ZxsgMAZmI&list=PLbFrQnW0BN...

If you have learned Hangul, then you can start with Lingodeer(app), TTMIK(talk to me in Korean)’s Grammar books, or Billie's beginner playlist - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx0yyQqkpqo&list=PLbFrQnW0BN....

These are all extremely beginner friendly. You can just look at the options and choose whichever works best for you. I personally tried lingodeer and ttmik both. I did a bit of lingodeer and then ttmik levels 1 to 3. I didn't try Billie's playlist, but he's a great teacher, so I recommend it if you think that would work better for you.

So in the beginning stages, it doesn't really matter so much, but eventually you're going to have to start thinking about how you’ll be learning the big 6, vocabulary and grammar (what I’ve spoken on so far covers grammar and TTMIK takes you pretty far in grammar if you stick with it) then speaking, listening, reading, writing, because believe me, there isn’t as much transfer learning as you would expect or hope. I mean, you don't have to stress over it or anything, just keep in mind that you have to eventually think about how you're going to address those things, and the sooner, reasonably, the better.

So this is kind of where my training diverges from most traditional approaches. I know I used Anki from my example and a lot of learners use that with pre made decks from the community for vocabulary, but honestly, I just couldn't use it then.

Part of it was because at the time, learning Korean words was like drawing blood for stone. For me, it was so hard. Even five words a day could be a challenge. My brain was like, “what the hell are you doing?”. It just wasn't going in.

Come to think of it, you know grokking in NN’s? Learning a language, you quickly realize the same phenomenon can occur in our biological counterparts. It’s like one day I was struggling to learn these new words, I don’t do anything drastic or different and suddenly the next day, learning new words felt so much easier, it’s crazy. Progress isn’t necessarily linear that’s for sure.

Part of it was also because I just didn't like the Anki experience, memorizing hundreds, thousands of words in isolation. It just wasn't really doing much for me. So, I just kind of dropped it. If traditional anki works for you then go for it but gin, you’ll need to figure out the remining 4. No matter how much isolated grammar and vocabulary you learn, you’ll need to practice doing each of those things for it to sink in.

The typical process is to learn a few thousand words and up to intermediate grammar before sinking into the 4. Makes things a lot less frustrating.

What I found was this amazing audiobook series. It's a graded reader series. 100 books with audio, all free(start from the oldest). https://audioclip.naver.com/channels/57.

Here the books are further divided into stories. At first, each story is really a few pages but it does get longer and longer as the series progresses. graded readers are specifically simplified literature created to help language learners progress.

It's also so that you can read in your target language much earlier than you otherwise would have because, well, you might see a lot of people say, “oh, just read, just watch or read children's shows or children's books.” That's a trap because like, children are native speakers man. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they aren't.

The complexity of the stuff they read or watch or whatever, is well beyond the beginner learner. So if you go into children's media and learning some few hundred words thinking, “oh, this should be easy, then, yeah, it may become very demoralizing because it won’t be in fact easy”.

And just to clarify, I mean children’s stuff not baby stuff. Yeah, baby stuff is simple, but you're going to get bored of that very, very fast.

So, yeah, it's a graded reader series and the idea is just to get started. Simplified stories you might find more interesting than baby stuff.

So, I really like reading. And I don't know, I just felt like it would be better because, you see, what Anki does is SRS, spaced repetition system, right? But when you think about reading, it's really a natural form of that. So, I just felt like, okay, this is what I'm going to try.

So, I was even thinking, oh, I could use this to knock almost all the birds with one stone, you know, it’s vocab, grammar, reading, and listening practice at the same time.

But the book series, it starts with a pretty high level. I don't know if you're familiar with the CEFR levels. It starts at about a low B1(bottom end of low intermediate) or so and ends at a high C1(top end of low advanced).

So, yeah, coming from where I was, where I knew at best, maybe 100 or 200 words and jumping in, it was difficult. And honestly, I would not have been able to do it without Mirinae. So, Mirinae is a grammar parser - https://mirinae.io/.

And what it does is, so basically, Korean and English are so far apart that you could know the meaning of every word in a sentence, and you would be absolutely lost as to the meaning of the sentence itself. So, what Mirinae did, or basically took what would have been impossible for me and made it achievable. I learnt a lot of grammar this way. You place the sentence in, and it would basically parse the grammar on the sentence.

You could see the explanations of different grammar parts, different nouns, objects, stuff like that, how this affected this and all that.

It was very, very, incredibly helpful. To to this day, I think that at least for distant languages, a good grammar parser is by far the most useful tool, better than a dictionary, better than just a translator.

So, the first story, I was pasting every sentence. So, it took me about a week to get through it, a few hours every day. The amazing thing was that you could the progress, the reduction in time it takes you to complete things, because the second story took only a few days in comparison. By the third or fourth story, I think it took only a few hours. I mean, I didn't finish it in a day, but I could have if I wasn’t a bit lazy.

So, yeah, that's the benefit of graded readers. Whether you start this as early as I did or not, it’s genuinely an amazing resource. Earlier this year, I came across this Anki deck series with natural audio -https://ankiweb.net/shared/by-author/374470252

What the guy managed to do was, he took a machine learning Korean speech dataset, and he kind of configured a lot of the sentences, which were, you know, a single woman speaking sentences, about 12,000 or so of those sentences. So, he reduced it to about 7,000, and he rearranged, as much as possible to be i+1 comprehensible. i+1 is just basically the idea that you come across a sentence, and there’s only one word you don't know.

So, it's much easier to grasp the meaning of that sentence quickly and easily. Then the next sentence, only one word, then the next sentence, only one word, then, and so on and so on. Now, this deck isn't perfectly i+1. But going through it, it's very good. So, you know, you could also explore that too after the beginner grammar resources, I suggested.

I’ve also noticed these guys, https://umiapp.co/.ly. It’s an app tailored for learning words in context, comprehensible input style. I really liked the looks of what I saw from the other languages. Korean isn’t there yet but is coming soon. By the time you’re ready for it, it’s hopefully there.

Anyway, best of luck.

Re: Is the reversal curse in LLMs real?

#200
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it bungled it and I don't agree that there's a clear ground truth here. Quite the opposite: you've only convinced me that the semantic ambiguity is real. It's like debating whether interim CEOs should be included in a list of CEOs.

You are, of course, free to ignore German law and its definitions, but that doesn't change the fact who actually was a Chancellor and who was not. Chancellor is a very well defined role.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN