Earlier quoted context omitted.
This overly reductive description of LLMs misses the forest for the trees. LLMs are circuit builders, the converged parameters pick out specific paths through the network that define programs. In other words, LLMs are differentiable computers[1]. Analogous to how a CPU is configured by the program state to execute arbitrary programs, the parameters of a converged LLM configure the high level matmul sequences towards…
> LLMs are circuit builders I think they are circuit "approximators". In other words, a result of a glorified linear regression..
ML promises to be profoundly weird
631–640 of 641 posts
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#632Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't make copies though. AI training requires making copies of materials, even if they're purchased.
Not true. You can photocopy pages from a book you own for your own use. You can make copies of purchased software as a backup. What you can’t do is make copies and give them to all your friends or sell them to the public.
No. You won't get it trouble for it. But it is against the law. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright
"U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights: Reproduce the work in copies"
This doesn't differentiate between partial and complete copies.
> You can make copies of purchased software as a backup
This is true. They had to write out that exception for digital media. And the key is "backup". You can't run or use multiple copies if you only own one.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#633Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs with harnesses are clearly capable of engaging with logical problems that only need text. > LLMs are clearly unable to propose new, creative solutions for problems it has never seen before. How do you reconcile this with this article that the author linked? It's not a novel problem, and it's only text: https://medium.com/the-generator/one-word-answers-expose-ai-... I guess it's a form of engagement to give a w…
The author of the medium article specifically hobbled the models to stop them thinking it through and got a wrong answer but that would happen with humans too and doesn't prove much.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#634Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally the paragraph right before the one you quote is this: > I am generally outside the ML field, but I do talk with people in the field. One of the things they tell me is that we don’t really know why transformer models have been so successful, or how to make them better. This is my summary of discussions-over-drinks; take it with many grains of salt. I am certain that People in The Comments will drop a gazilli…
The title of the article is “The Future of Everything is Lies, I Guess” and the first part is literally complaining about LLMs being bullshit machines, while the author proceeds to tell confabulations (or lies) of his own. Is there not a bit of irony in that? If you’re a non-expert in a field, I don’t think it’s a good sign if you’re writing a 10 part article about that field’s impact on society and getting basic fac…
Maybe some, but not that much given the disclaimers I cited above. There's value in a qualitative confidence level for a statement, and I'd argue that this is something that LLMs do not seem to produce in practice without someone explicitly asking for it. The human author's ability to anticipate potential mistakes in their logic and communicate those ahead of time is not equivalent to the type of fabrications that LLMs routinely make.
> If you’re a non-expert in a field, I don’t think it’s a good sign if you’re writing a 10 part article about that field’s impact on society and getting basic facts wrong. How can I trust that the conclusions will be any more credible?
I don't know why an expert in LLM implementation would be inherently more qualified to analyze the second-order effects of their product than anyone else. There's precedent for people who are "too close" to something having biases that make them less effective at recognizing how tools will get used by non-experts, and society as a whole is largely composed of people who are not experts in LLM implementations. If you wanted to understand what the net effect of everyone having access to LLMs, having an understanding of people is probably more important than knowing exactly what an LLM does under the hood.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#635Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm halfway through Foundation on Apple TV and this piece landed hard (you had me at Asimov) because of it. Asimov's whole deal with psychohistory is that you can predict what large populations do even when individuals are unpredictable. Seldon doesn't need anyone to be honest; he needs the math to converge on something real about how people actually behave. LLMs are sort of the inverse of that. They produce text tha…
how are you enjoying the live action saturday morning cartoon version of Foundation with bonus plucky protagonists?
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#636Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true. You can photocopy pages from a book you own for your own use. You can make copies of purchased software as a backup. What you can’t do is make copies and give them to all your friends or sell them to the public.
> You can photocopy pages from a book you own for your own use No. You won't get it trouble for it. But it is against the law. https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright "U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights: Reproduce the work in copies" This doesn't differentiate between partial and complete copies. > You can make copies of purchased software as a backup This is true. Th…
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#637Earlier quoted context omitted.
transformers have a fixed input size (padding the unneeded context window with null tokens). Whether you put in a sequence of things or just random tokens is irrelevant. To the network it is just "one input" They also have a fixed output of one probability distribution for the next one token. running it in a loop does not mean it can work with sequences, by that definition, so can literally everything else
Sorry but that's false, you are confusing transformers as an architecture, and auto-regressive generation, and padding during training. Standard transformers take in an arbitrary input size and run blocks (self and possibly cross attention, positional encoding, MLPs) that don't care about its length. > They also have a fixed output of one probability distribution for the next one token. No, in most implementations, t…
The network has a fixed number of input neurons. You have to put something in all of them.
If you enter "hello", the network might get " hello", but all of its inputs need some inputs. It doesn't (and can't) process tokens one at a time.
"No, in most implementations, they output a probability distribution for every token in the input."
A probability distribution obviously contains a probability for every possible next token. But the whole probability distribution (which adds up to one) only predicts the next ONE token. It predicts what is the probability of that one token being A, or B, or C, etc, giving a probability for each possible token. It's still predicting only one token.
In anything but the last column, the numbers are junk. You can treat them as probability distributions all you want, but the system is only trained to get the outputs of the last column "correct".
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#638Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry but that's false, you are confusing transformers as an architecture, and auto-regressive generation, and padding during training. Standard transformers take in an arbitrary input size and run blocks (self and possibly cross attention, positional encoding, MLPs) that don't care about its length. > They also have a fixed output of one probability distribution for the next one token. No, in most implementations, t…
you, the user can enter any size input you want. The network has a fixed number of input neurons. You have to put something in all of them. If you enter "hello", the network might get " hello", but all of its inputs need some inputs. It doesn't (and can't) process tokens one at a time. "No, in most implementations, they output a probability distribution for every token in the input." A probability distribution obviou…
> The network has a fixed number of input neurons. You have to put something in all of them.
The way transformers work is that they apply the same "input neurons" to each individual token! It's not:
Token 1 -> Neuron 1 Token 2 -> Neuron 2 Token 3 -> Neuron 3... With excess neurons not being used, it's
Token 1 -> Vector of dimensions N -> ALL neurons Token 2 -> Vector of dimensions N -> ALL neurons Token 3- > Vector of dimensions N -> ALL neurons ...
Grossly oversimplified, in a typical transformer layer, you have 3 distinct such "networks" of neurons. You apply them each token, giving you, for each token, a "query", a "key", and a "value". You take the dot product of there query and key, apply softmax, then multiply it with the value, giving you the vector to input for the next layer.
A probability distribution obviously contains a probability for every possible next token. But the whole probability distribution (which adds up to one) only predicts the next ONE token. It predicts what is the probability of that one token being A, or B, or C, etc, giving a probability for each possible token. It's still predicting only one token. In anything but the last column, the numbers are junk. You can treat them as probability distributions all you want, but the system is only trained to get the outputs of the last column "correct". Not quite, the reason transformers train fast is because you can train on all columns at once.
For tokens 1, 2, 3, 4, ... you get predictions for tokens 2, 3, 4, 5... Typical autoregressive transformer training uses a causal mask, so that token 1 doesn't see token 2, enabling you to train on all the predictions at once.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#639Earlier quoted context omitted.
>SSMs move the non-linearity outside of the recurrence which enables parallelisation during training. It is trivial to do this architectural change with an LSTM (see the xLSTM paper). Linear RNNs are still RNNs. Removing the non-linearity from the recurrence path is exactly what constitutes a "pretty big architectural divergence." A linear RNN is an RNN in a structural sense, certainly, but functionally it strips out…
> That does not scale anywhere near as well as Transformers in compute spend. It's paper/research novelty. Nobody will be doing this for production. What exactly makes you so confident? The world is not just labs that can afford billion dollar datacentres and selling access to SOTA LLMs at $30/Mtokens. Transformers are highly unsuitable for many applications for a variety of reasons and non-linear RNNs trained via pa…
Existing research? If you want something that scales as well as transformers you have to make the divergences I was talking about. If you don't then it scales a lot worse. The Newton methods don't match transformer efficiency at scale. That's just a fact.
>The world is not just labs that can afford billion dollar datacentres and selling access to SOTA LLMs at $30/Mtokens.
Billion dollar labs want to save money too. If Modern RNNs were a massive unanimous win, they and everyone else would switch in a heartbeat, just like they did for transformers. The reason they don't is because these architectures at best simply match transformers, while introducing their own architectural issues.
Re: ML promises to be profoundly weird
#640Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. This is just wildly incorrect. People started running out of trees during the early Iron Age. Woodlands have been a managed and often over exploited resource for a long time. Active agriculture vs passive woodlands vs animal grazing has been in constant tension for thousands…
This, and going back further, people literally would brutally massacre neighbouring tribal groupings over control of fishing and hunting and gathering grounds. The rapid dispersal of our species over literally the entire planet (minus Antarctica) likely also has a lot to do with constantly moving on to new opportunities further away from rivals. That said, starting in about the 18th century we ran out of new places f…