Live data from Hacker News

Some thoughts on autoregressive models

wonderfall.dev

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#21

Similar arguments to LeCun. People are going to keep saying this about autoregressive models, how small errors accumulate and can't be corrected, while we literally watch reasoning models say things like "oh that's not right, let me try a different approach". To me, this is like people saying "well NAND gates clearly can't sort things so I don't see how a computer could". Large transformers can clearly learn very com…

Yann LeCun's prediction was empirically refuted. He says that the longer LLMs run, the less accurate they get. OpenAI showed the opposite is true.

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#22
post #17

> The context window can be compared to working memory in humans: it’s fast, efficient but gets rapidly overloaded. Humans manage this limitation by offloading previously learned information into other memory forms, whereas LLMs can only mimic this process superficially at best. This is just silly. Humans forget things all the time! If I want to remember something I write it down. > The nature of hallucination is ver…

Do you think in words when you do a 3 x 2 digit multiplication? I do it all in images and I think many other people do too.

We think of LLMs as not math-proficient (because they aren't yet) but what about those multimodal models?

I wonder if anyone has tried getting them to "imagine" math in a way to "visually compute".

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#23

Similar arguments to LeCun. People are going to keep saying this about autoregressive models, how small errors accumulate and can't be corrected, while we literally watch reasoning models say things like "oh that's not right, let me try a different approach". To me, this is like people saying "well NAND gates clearly can't sort things so I don't see how a computer could". Large transformers can clearly learn very com…

Yann LeCun's prediction was empirically refuted. He says that the longer LLMs run, the less accurate they get. OpenAI showed the opposite is true.

They didn't show this, they just increased the length where accuracy breaks down.

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yann LeCun's prediction was empirically refuted. He says that the longer LLMs run, the less accurate they get. OpenAI showed the opposite is true.

They didn't show this, they just increased the length where accuracy breaks down.

Explain? OpenAI showed the new scaling law in December 2024 that performance keeps increasing proportional to ln(N reasoning tokens)

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't show this, they just increased the length where accuracy breaks down.

Explain? OpenAI showed the new scaling law in December 2024 that performance keeps increasing proportional to ln(N reasoning tokens)

link?

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#26

> The context window can be compared to working memory in humans: it’s fast, efficient but gets rapidly overloaded. Humans manage this limitation by offloading previously learned information into other memory forms, whereas LLMs can only mimic this process superficially at best. This is just silly. Humans forget things all the time! If I want to remember something I write it down. > The nature of hallucination is ver…

> There's not much signal here, just basic facts about LLMs and then leaps to very bold statements.

The article wasn't supposed to be informative for people who already know how LLMs work. Like the title said, just wanted to write down some thoughts.

> This is just silly. Humans forget things all the time! If I want to remember something I write it down.

The opposite was never stated. Human memory is of course selective.

> Here is an interesting experiment I use to help people understand next token prediction. Think of a simple math problem in your head, maybe 3 digit by 2 digit multiplication. Then speak out every single thought you have while solving it.

Now a point I'm happy to discuss! The process of solving it is actually quite autoregressive-like, but this is also an example of a common pitfall with LLMs: they purely rely on pattern matching because they don't have the internal representation of what they really deal with (algebra). But we all know that.

The main question is whether LLMs taught to reason actually show that they have this kind of representation. They still work very differently I'd say; even for tasks that seem trivial to humans, reasoning LLMs will make a lot of mistakes before arriving at a plausible-sounding result. Because it was trained to reason, there's a higher chance now that the plausible-sounding result is actually correct. But this property is actually quite interesting once applied to complex tasks that would take too much time and overwhelming for humans, and that's where they shine as powerful tools.

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#27

>Isn’t language by itself linear. We've known that language is hierarchal, not linear for hundreds of years at this point.

I guess semantics matter. Language is primarily hierarchical, but its presentation is what's linear. And LLMs mainly learn and work from this presentation; the question is, and one of the main points, whether emerging patterns is enough evidence to show that there's hierarchical thinking.

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#29

Similar arguments to LeCun. People are going to keep saying this about autoregressive models, how small errors accumulate and can't be corrected, while we literally watch reasoning models say things like "oh that's not right, let me try a different approach". To me, this is like people saying "well NAND gates clearly can't sort things so I don't see how a computer could". Large transformers can clearly learn very com…

LeCun is for sure a source of inspiration, and I think he has a fair critique that still holds true despite what people think when they see reasoning models in action. But I don't think like him that autoregressive models are a doomed path or whatever. I just like to question things (and don't have absolute answers).

I-JEPA and V-JEPA have recently shown promising results as well.

Re: Some thoughts on autoregressive models

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Author here and I welcome the feedback, but I don't really understand your point. My post is clearly not dismissive of efforts to make LLMs reason using CoT prompting techniques and post-training, and I think such efforts are even mentioned. The model remains autoregressive either way, and this reasoning is not some kind of magic that makes them behave differently - these improvements only make them perform (much) be…

Not saying that our current approaches will lead to intelligence. No one can know. It could very well be that the internal mechanism of our thought has an auto-regressive reasoning component. With the full system effectively "combining" short term memory (what just happened) and "pruned" long-term memory (what relevant things i know from the past) and pushing that into a RAW autoregressive reasoning component. It is…

I completely agree. I never said that "intelligence cannot be auto-regressive", I just questioned whether this can be achieved or not this way. And I don't actually have answers, I just wrote down some thoughts so it would sparkle some interesting discussions about that, and I'm glad it did work (a little) in the end.

I also mentioned that I'm supportive of architectures that will integrate autoregressive components. Totally agree with that.

Post reply on HN