Earlier quoted context omitted.
engineering vs. science -> scientist-types find such hacks ugly whereas engineers have to pay bills and get things moving fast.
And when engineers accumulate enough related hacks, scientist-types may discover a pattern and find a proper, general solution. But they wouldn't get there without the pile of hacks that are effectively meta-level empirical evidence.
Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
201–210 of 215 posts
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also obvious and it's hacky. Frankly I'm stunned this hasn't been tried yet. The people thinking this is a stepping stone to More Intelligence are missing the forest for the trees. Deep learning is always and only ever about representing data abstractly . The more abstractions you can make irrelevant (why would you have to learn how to do math when the base-10 perspective on ASCII-digits is already provided for…
ASCII digits do not always imply base-10 numbers, they can also be identifiers (e.g. phone numbers), parts of words (IPv6, Log4j), and used in various 'written slang' such as g2g, 4ever, m8 for mate, etc, etc. And, crucially, I'd argue that for in "chatbot" tasks those other uses are more common than arithmetic, so arbitrary focus to specifically optimize arithmetic doesn't really make sense - the bitter lesson is th…
Stepping one level out in the metacognition hierarchy is the key. "Learning to learn" as it were. It is only the relative ease of implementation and deployment of feedforward models like Transformers that makes it seem like we have reached an optimum but we desperately need to move beyond it before it's entrenched too thoroughly.
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's simply not possible. Human understanding is still unreliable, even for geniuses.
It's entirely possible. Don't use LLMs for math. Use the computers we already have that have been capable of doing math accurately for a century. Right tool, right job.
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm with you. I get that this is akin to asking a human, because we're trying to reason, so we will bring along (assumedly) unavoidable deficiencies of human reasoning. But if I were to ask a human genius this question, ne would grab a calculator and employ it as ne did the rest of ner reasoning. So it seems like we should probably teach LLMs to "use a calculator", rather than try to get them to be more right when do…
Indeed, "use a calculator" is "just a trick"!
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
ASCII digits do not always imply base-10 numbers, they can also be identifiers (e.g. phone numbers), parts of words (IPv6, Log4j), and used in various 'written slang' such as g2g, 4ever, m8 for mate, etc, etc. And, crucially, I'd argue that for in "chatbot" tasks those other uses are more common than arithmetic, so arbitrary focus to specifically optimize arithmetic doesn't really make sense - the bitter lesson is th…
You're missing the picture again. Stepping one level out in the metacognition hierarchy is the key. "Learning to learn" as it were. It is only the relative ease of implementation and deployment of feedforward models like Transformers that makes it seem like we have reached an optimum but we desperately need to move beyond it before it's entrenched too thoroughly.
We probably do have to move beyond transformers, but not in the direction of such hacks, but rather towards even more general representations that could encode the whole class of all such alternate representations and then learn from data which of them work best.
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They're not able to reason, but we can't succintly define what it is. For transformer-based LLMs, and most LLMs there's an obvious class of problems that they cannot solve. LLMs generally perform bounded computation per token, so they cannot reason about computational problems that are more than linearly complex, for a sufficiently large input instance. If you have a back-and-forth (many shot) your LLM can possibly…
> LLMs generally perform bounded computation per token, so they cannot reason about computational problems that are more than linearly complex, for a sufficiently large input instance. I can’t judge if this is true, because I don’t know transformers well, but if it is, it unravels an intuitive thought I’ve never been able to articulate about not only LLMs, but possibly all pattern matching and the human analog of Sys…
In the right context, why not? You rely on this everyday to navigate the world with more facility than a newborn.
Have you heard about the different formal notions of complexity and especially Kolmogorov complexity?
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not within mathematics, where it is the entire sport, and which is the point of contention.
If there is one space where it shines, sure it’s mathematics. But even there, the most notable mathematicians highly rely on some intuitions far before they manage to prove anything, as well as while selecting/creating their conceptual tools to attempt to build the proof, and rarely go to the point of formalizing their points through Coq/Isabelle or even with meticulous paper craft à la Principia Mathematica from Rus…
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes, but humans invented arithmetic. I think most would argue Mathematics is a discipline that is discovered more than invented. That said, this isn't really the point I think. A few humans invented/discovered arithmetic. Most humans will be born, live and die inventing absolutely nothing, even those with the opportunity and resources to do so. It doesn't make sense to me that a bar most humans can't reach is the ba…
>> Most humans will be born, live and die inventing absolutely nothing, even those with the opportunity and resources to do so. I don't think that's right at all. I like to visit museums. You really get hit in the face with the unending creativity of the human mind and the variety of all that human hands have crafted over thousands of years across hundreds of cultures. I would go as far as to say that the natural sta…
It does matter, depending on what claim you're making. We've not reached the upper bound of transformer ability. Until we clearly do, then it very much does matter.
>I'm with LeCun and Bengio. There's a fair amount of confusion about what a "model" is in that sense: a theory of the world. There's no reason why LLMs should have that.
See this is my problem with Lecun's arguments. He usually starts with the premise that it's not possible and works his way from there. If you disagree with the premise then there's very little left. "Well it shouldn't be possible" is not a convincing argument, especially when we really have very little clue on the nature of intelligence.
>Sutskever's bet is that a model can be learned from text generated by entities that already have a world model, i.e. us, but LeCun is right in pointing out that a lot of what we know about the world is never transmitted by text or language.
A lot of the world is transmitted by things humans don't have access to. Wouldn't birds that can naturally sense electromagnetic waves to intuit direction say humans have no model of the world ? Would they be right ? Nobody is trained on the world. Everything that exists is trained on small slices of it. A lot of the world is transmitted by text and language. And if push comes to shove then text and language is not the only thing you can train a transformer on.
>Sutskever again seems to think that, that kind of information, can somehow be guessed from the text, but that seems like a very tall order,
I don't think this is as tall an order as you believe
>and Transformers don't look like the right architecture. You need something that can learn hidden (latent) variables. Transformers can't do that.
But they do this all the time.
Transformer trained on only protein sequences learns biological structure and function - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2016239118
Toy example on binary addition (transformer trained on inputs and outputs of addition sequences) learn an algorithm for it - https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/N6WM6hs7RQMKDhYjB/a-mec...
Unless i'm misunderstanding what you mean by hidden variables, it's very clear a transformer is regularly learning not just the sequences themselves but what might produce them.
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well 1. Radiology is an insanely niche subject not indiciative of general intelligence, and 2. AI being at good radiology isn't about object recognition or spatial reasoning, its data analysis connecting features to outcomes. Lastly, check out the ARC challenge or any other spatial reasoning tests for AI. Humans get ~80% on these challenges whereas the best AI is still at 25%
Can you point me towards a citation for the 25% figure? I'm seeing numbers like 96% ( https://paperswithcode.com/sota/common-sense-reasoning-on-ar... ) but I'm guessing that's just for a subset of the larger class of questions. Also, are you familiar with this study? What are your thoughts on it? https://www.esmo.org/newsroom/press-and-media-hub/esmo-media... Seems like a valid case where AI is competitive with skill…
https://lab42.global/arcathon/leaderboard/
https://openreview.net/forum?id=E8m8oySvPJ
As to the study, I have the same objection as the radiology one. This isnt about object recognition and certainly not spatial reasoning, its the ability to predict cancer based on presence of visual features.
The "object recognition" part of this is super simple. Its a single, mostly 2D object in more or less the same angle, and the AI is trained on detecting just this.
Re: Transformers Can Do Arithmetic with the Right Embeddings
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point me towards a citation for the 25% figure? I'm seeing numbers like 96% ( https://paperswithcode.com/sota/common-sense-reasoning-on-ar... ) but I'm guessing that's just for a subset of the larger class of questions. Also, are you familiar with this study? What are your thoughts on it? https://www.esmo.org/newsroom/press-and-media-hub/esmo-media... Seems like a valid case where AI is competitive with skill…
It seems theres multiple things by the name ARC. There is one by AI2 which is a text based science questions/word problems. The one Im referring to is this https://lab42.global/arc/ https://lab42.global/arcathon/leaderboard/ https://openreview.net/forum?id=E8m8oySvPJ As to the study, I have the same objection as the radiology one. This isnt about object recognition and certainly not spatial reasoning, its the ability…
And yet it outperforms human dermatologists.