What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama? | Hacker News Reader

What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?

neuralmagic.com

231 pointsBUFU132 comments

All of these smaller model paradigm suggests that we need to incorporate pruning into model training. Neat was one of my favorite algorithms of all time. Same thing with BitNet models which keep showing the information you need is not that much for neural networks. And again, it is same with us, we use much less energy than a regular network so there seems to be immense waste of energy training these models.

My intiution tells me the pre-training paradigm will shift immensely in near future because we started to understand that we don’t need all these paramaters since the subnetworks seems to be very robust preserving information in high dimensions. We keep saying curse of dimensionality but it is more like the bliss of dimensionality we keep seeing. Network redundancy still seems to be very high given BitNet is more less comparable to other LLMs.

This basically shows over 50% of the neural net is gibberish! The reason being is that the objective function simply does not include it.

Again my intiution tells me that neural scaling laws are incomplete as they are because they lack the efficiency parameter that needs to be taken into account (or simply left out due to greed of corporate).

And this is what we are seeing as “the wall”.

I am no expert in neural network theory nor in math but I would assume the laws should be something in the vicinity of this formulation/simulation:

https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1xkTMU2v1I-EHFAjoS86...

and encapsulate shannon’s channel’s capacity. I call them generalized scaling laws since it includes what it should include in the first place: entropy.

I seem to recall that there a recent theory paper that got a best paper award, but can't find it.

If I remember correctly, their counter-intuitive result was that big overparameterized models could learn more efficiently, and were less likely to get trapped in poor regions of the optimization space.

[This is also similar to how introducing multimodal training gives an escape hatch to get out of tricky regions.]

So with this hand-wavey argument, it might be the case that two-phase training is needed: A large overcomplete pretraining focused on assimilating all the knowledge, and a second that makes it compact. Other, that there is a hyperparameter that controls overcompleteness vs compactness and you adjust it over training.

The lottery ticket hypothesis paper from 2018?

Seems this way. Gigantic model, hit the jackpot, prune the nonsense. It doesn't seem like smaller models are enough tickets.

I don't see that contuer-intuitive at all. If you have a barrier in your cost function in 1d model you have to cross over it no matter what. In 2d it could be only a mount that you can go around. More dimensions mean more ways to go around.

This is also how the human brain works. A young babby will have something more similar to a fully connected network. Versus a Biden type elderly brain will be more of a sparse minimally connected feed forward net. The question is (1) can this be adjusted dynamically in silico and (2) if we succeed in that, does fine-tuning still work?

You don't have to compare to old age. Even 10 year old child has its brain pruned immensely when compared to its babyself.

"Train large, then compress"

I guess we can think of it like one giant funnel; it gets narrower as it goes down.

Vs trying to fill something with just a narrow tube, you spill most of what you put in.

> This basically shows over 50% of the neural net is gibberish! The reason being is that the objective function simply does not include it.

This is a mischaracterization of sparsity. Performance did drop, so the weights are not gibberish. Training vs pruning, you can't train into the final state, you can only prune there.

The fact that you can prune a model will not make it smarter, the wall still stands. I think what explains the wall is the fact that we can't scale organic data exponentially, and we have already covered the most useful types.

Going forward we will accumulate truly useful data at a linear growing rate. This fundamentally breaks the scaling game. If your model and compute expand exponentially but your training data only linearly, the efficiency won't be the same.

Synthetic data might help us pad up the training sets, but the most promising avenue I think is to use user-LLM chat logs. Those logs contain real world grounding and human in the loop. Millions of humans doing novel tasks. But that only scales linearly with time, as well.

No way around it - we only once had the whole internet for the first time in the training set. After that it's linear time.

Don't we still have a lot of video, and other non text real world data to go with? Feels like a possible potential break from there.

Generally speaking text only models manage to learn a huge amount about the visual world. So when you put the model train on video it might have less to learn. Video is also less abstract than text, generally. But I am sure we can still extract useful learning from videos, it's probably expensive, but we'll have to do that at some point.

Given how much of the web is ai generated slop now, I think going forward it’s even worse than you suggest.

I have a copy of refined web locally so I have a billion pre-chatgpt documents for my long term use.

In mice, ~30% of neurons are silent [1]. Neuralink team is finding that most are silent, where they probe [2]:

> Also, most of them are silent. They don’t really do much. Or their activities are… You have to hit it with just the right set of stimulus.

> ... When you place these electrodes, again, within this hundred micron volume, you have 40 or so neurons. Why do you not see 40 neurons? Why do you see only a handful? What is happening there?

(Yes, I understand LLM aren't brains.)

[1] https://news.mit.edu/2022/silent-synapses-brain-1130

[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kbk9BiPhm7o&t=7056

After reading the article it seems to me that this is more like synaptic pruning where weak connections between neurons are eliminated in order to increase the efficiency of the neurons. Interesting to see that this also works for LLMs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning

The issue is that no one fully understands why synaptic pruning occurs in biology. Large language models have no direct connection to biological systems, and pruning in LLMs is no exception.

Really? It seems obvious to me.

During the learning stage we want input from every variable so that we are sure that we don't omit a variable that turns out to be essential for the calculation. However in any calculation a human does 99.9999% of variables are irrelevant (e.g. what day of the week it is, am I sleepy, etc), so of course the brain wouldn't use resources to keep connections that aren't relevant to a given function. Imagine what a liability it would be if we have had excessive direct connections from our visual processing system to the piece of our brain that controls heartrate.

We can convince ourselves of a lot of things that 'seem obvious'. The pesky thing is that sometimes those obvious facts have the temerity to be untrue. That's why we try to understand systems instead of believing obvious things.

As far as I know, pruning is related to age. At birth, we have a massive number of silent synapses. As we grow older, those that remain unused (i.e., inactive) tend to disappear. This process involves a delicate mechanism, including components of the immune system.

The unfortunate reality is that no one truly understands how memory works. Many theories are floating around, but the fundamental components remain elusive. One thing is certain: it is quite different from backpropagation. Thankfully, our brains do not suffer from catastrophic forgetting.

In ANNs pruning helps prevent over-fitting. With the discovery that transformers lack reasoning capabilities this research really comes at a great time. It's a miniscule chance, but we might see this improve performance over the long term and further research.

>With the discovery that transformers lack reasoning capabilities

The only paper I have seen claiming this studied only lightweight open-source models (<27B, mostly 2B and 8B). The also included o1 and 4o for reference, which kind of broke their hypothesis, but they just left that part out of the conclusion. Not even kidding, their graphs show o1 and 4o having strong performance in their benchmarks, but the conclusion just focuses on 2B and 7B models like gemma and qwen.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05229

An 18% drop in accuracy (figure 8) is not insignificant. Even 4o suffered 10% loss (figure 6), and 4o isn't a small llm.

Competent performance should have near zero performance loss. The simplest benchmark merely changes things like "john had 4 apples" to "Mary had 4 oranges." Performance loss due to inconsequential tokens changing is the very definition of over-fitting.

It's clear though that as the models get bigger and more advanced, their "reasoning" benchmark results improve. The conclusion though just focuses on the bottom tier models. The fact they even set out to create an LLM benchmark and only focus on bottom tier models itself is ridiculous.

The authors did the equivalent of "Lets design a human intelligence benchmark, and use a bunch of 12 year olds as reference points"

I will eat my hat if the authors rescind the paper in a year or so if their benchmarks show no difference on SOTA models.

I just don't see how anyone can see a study comparing the reasoning abilities of various LLMs, see that large LLMs have better reasoning abilities and conclude that LLMs can't reason. LLMs don't have human-like reasoning abilities, but it's just obviously true that they have some capacity for reasoning; that ability seems to scale roughly linearly with model size and training FLOPs.

Yes, but is human-reasoning on the same spectrum as LLM-reasoning? Meaning that only scale will turn the latter into the former?

No definitive answer yet, but my bet is on no.

Agreed, and I think the answer is pretty clear.

Large models successful now have dodged recurrent architecture, which is harder to train but allows for open ended inference steps, which would allow straightforward scaling to any number of reasoning steps.

At some point, recurrent connections are going to get re-incorporated into these models.

Maybe two stage training. First stage, learn to integrate as much information as well as possible, without recurrence. As is happening now. Second training stage, embed that model in a larger iterative model, and train for variable step reasoning.

Finally, successful iterative reasoning responses can be used as further examples for the non-iterative module.

This would be similar to how we reason in steps at first, in unfamiliar areas. But quickly learn to reason with faster direct responses, as we gain familiarity.

We continually fine tune our fast mode on our own more powerful slow mode successes.

Lol, imagine being downvoted for asking a couple of questions.

Still 5k points to go, though! :D

Has anyone done this sort of test on people?

>The simplest benchmark merely changes things like "john had 4 apples" to "Mary had 4 oranges."

Those models (4o, o1-mini, preview) don't see any drop at all on those benchmarks. The only benchmark that see drops with the SOTA models is the one they add, "seemingly relevant but ultimately irrelevant information".

Humans can and do drop in performance when presented with such alterations. Are they better than LLMs in that case ? Who knows ? Because these papers don't bother testing human baselines.

A vocal minority of researchers are essentially human chauvinists --- they "want to believe" that LLMs can't "really" perform this or that part of cognition even though the evidence is blinding that they can. (Anyone who genuinely believes that LLMs can't reason at all has never used an LLM.) These researchers start with their conclusion and work backwards to an argument, making their work seductive but useless.

So you are saying that LLM do can reasoning? Logical reasoning is something completely else than likelyhood in word completion. A pure LLM will never be able to do reasoning, you need a hybrid. Use the LLM for classification and completion and a logic system for reasoning

The problem is in being able to discern reasoning from patterns that happen to exist in the training data. There are plenty of tricks you can play on an LLM by subverting the expectations it must necessarily have due to its training data. A human might fall into the same trap, but can then reason themselves out of it, whereas an LLM tends to double down on its mistake.

A number of things that work for biological systems (humans) work for LLMs too:

- after the answer, ask it "are you sure?" (from the office tv series: "is it a stupid thing to do? if it is, don't do it") - chain of thought, step-by-step thinking - different hats (godfather style: piecetime vs. wartime consigliere): looking at the problem from different points of view (at the same time or in stages). For example, first draft: stream of consciousness answer, second iteration: critic/editor/reviewer (produces comments), third (address comments), repeat for some time - collaborative work of different experts(MoE), delegate specific tasks to specialists - [deliberate] practice with immediate feedback

I might be missing something, but it would be great if the charts would show inference speed, model size (required VRAM) and quality (benchmark results) in one. It might be that the same quality and speed and size can be attained by just quantizing, perhaps with added fine-tuning, without the sparseness. The post seems to imply that their method is better, but if that's the case, they could show that.

I don't understand LLMs enough to know if this is a silly question or not.

Is it possible to build domain specific smaller models and merge/combine them at query/run time to give better response or performance instead of one large all knowing model that learns everything ?

I think that's the intuition behind MoE (Mixture of Experts). Train separate subnets for different tasks, train a router that selects which subnets to activate at inference time. Mixtral is a current open model which I believe implements this.

No. MoE tends to change expert every other word. There’s a bit of pattern (like a lot of punctuation to one expert) but it’s not clear what. Nobody understands how or why the router chooses the expert. It’s so early.

> Nobody understands how or why the router chooses the expert. It’s so early.

Nobody understand how LLM works either. Is LLM as "early" as MoE ?

LLMs are really well understood, what do you mean? You can see the precise activations and token probabilities for every next token. You can abliterate the network however you'd like to suppress or excite concepts of your choosing.

There's various layers of understanding.

If you will excuse analogy and anthropomorphism, the human analogy of what we do and don't understand about LLMs is, I think, that we understand quantum mechanics, cell chemistry, and overall connectivity (perceptrons, activation functions, and architecture) and group psychology (general dynamics of the output), but not specifically how some belief is stored (in both humans and LLMs).

Mathematically speaking LLMs have very precise formulation and can be seen as F(context, X0, X1, ..., XP) = next_token. What science behind the LLMs is still lacking is how all these parameters are correlated one to each other and why one set of values is giving a better prediction than the other set of values. Right now, we arrive to these values through experimental approach, that is, through trainings.

i think the younger generation who came up post deep learning, has a very very low bar for “understanding” because they never knew a world where SotA models worked in a way that made sense.

> MoE tends to change expert every other word

Any citation on this one?

It's covered in the original Mistral "Mixtral of Experts" paper [0].

0. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04088

I believe it's actually a per token routing, not a "every few words"

It's mechanically capable of per-token routing, but the routing tends to be stable across more than one token. It's weird.

It's got nothing to do with words, and many MoEs route to multiple experts per token (the well known Mixtral variants for example activates 2 experts per token).

Weirdly it does have to do with words, but not intentionally. Mechanically the routing is per-token, but the routing is frequently stable across a word as an emergent property. At least, that's how I read the mixtral paper.

Yep.

Also note that I’m ELI5 so saying word is fine.

This is not how MoEs work at all. They are all trained together, often you have multiple experts activated for a single token. They are not domain specific in any way that is understandable by humans.

This is called speculative decoding

No, speculative decoding is when you use a smaller draft model to propose tokens and then use the larger target model to verify the proposals. It has got nothing to do with domain specialization.

You might want to look into "task arithmetic" which aims at combining task-specific models post-training. For example:

https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/d...

It's possible, the question is how to choose which submodel will be used for a given query.

You can use a specific LLM, or a general larger LLM to do this routing.

Also, some work suggest using smaller llms to generate multiple responses and use a stronger and larger model to rank the responses (which is much more efficient than generating them)

Taking a further step back from LLM’s, this is called portfolio / ensemble techniques in the literature.

A common practice in more formal domains is to have a portfolio of solvers and race them, allowing for the first (provably correct) solver to “win”

In less formal domains, adding/removing nodes/trees in an online manner is part of the deployment process for random forests.

LLobotoMy

MyLLoboto

RRobotomy

> “By sourcing and filtering only the highest-quality and most representative data for LLM use cases, we reduced the pretraining set to just 13 billion tokens—drastically cutting the environmental impact of further training while preserving performance.”

Would love to know more about how they filtered the training set down here and what heuristics were involved.

I think that the models we use now are enormous for the use cases we’re using them for. Work like this and model distillation in general is fantastic and sorely needed, both to broaden price accessibility and to decrease resource usage.

I’m sure frontier models will only get bigger, but I’d be shocked if we keep using the largest models in production for almost any use case.

For those curious, NVidia and Cerebras have been doing R&D in sparse neural nets for something like a decade. NVidia began adding hardware support for them several generations ago (Ampere).

It is significantly more complex than it appears at first sight.

Surprising that the retained accuracy is so high after removing 1/2 of parameters. Does this help with being able to run inference on low-end GPUs?

I believe it definitely does. The inference cost will be much cheaper.

The main constraint on consumer GPUs is the VRAM - you can pretty much always do inference reasonably fast on any model that you can fit. And most of that VRAM is the loaded parameters, so yes, this should help with running better models locally.

I wonder how much they'd be able to trim the recent QwQ-32b. That thing is actually good enough to be realistically useful, and runs decently well with 4-bit quantization, which makes it 16Gb large - small enough to fit into a 3090 or 4090, but that's about it. If it can be squeezed into more consumer hardware, we could see some interesting things.

Does this mean that the model will be half the size?

If a 32B model@4bit normally requires 16 GB VRAM, at half the size, it could be run @8bit with 16 GB VRAM?

Isn't that tradeoff a great improvement? I assume the improved bit precision will more than compensate for the loss related to removal?

There is some improvement going from 4-bit to 8-bit quantization, but if you have VRAM to spare for that, you usually see more benefit from running a 2x larger model at 4-bit. So in scenarios where an LM already fits the existing VRAM budget, I would expect larger models instead.

The other thing is that VRAM is used not just for the weights, but also for prompt processing, and this last part grows proportionally as you increase the context size. For example, for the aforementioned QwQ-32, with base model size of ~18Gb at 4-bit quantization, the full context length is 32k, and you need ~10Gb extra VRAM on top of weights if you intend to use the entirety of that context. So in practice, while 30b models fit into 24Gb (= a single RTX 3090 or 4090) at 4-bit quantization, you're going to run out of VRAM once you get past 8k context. Thus the other possibility is that VRAM saved by tricks like sparse models can be used to push that further - for many tasks, context size is the limiting factor.

For readability, I recommend reserving "b" for bits, "B" for byte, "p" for parameter.

I assume in your post that "30b" meant 30 billion, or in other words, 30Gp (giga-parameter).

Furthermore is 24Gb of VRAM 24 gigabits (power of 10), or 24 gibibits (power of 2)?

For readability I'm using the same convention that is generally used for these applications, where if you see "-Nb" after a model name, it always refers to the number of parameters. I have never once seen "p" for "parameter", never mind terms like "giga-parameter". Most certainly if you go searching for models on HuggingFace etc, you'll have to deal with "30b" etc terminology whether you like it or not.

With VRAM, this quite obviously refers to the actual amount that high-end GPUs have, and I even specifically listed which ones I have in mind, so you can just look up their specs if you genuinely don't know the meaning in this context.

You can run Models up to 128GB on a MacBook Pro Max. So we're already at a point where you can run all but the biggest frontier models on consumer hardware.

> more consumer hardware

Given the price tag, I don't think I'd call that "consumer" hardware, but rather "professional" hardware.

But perhaps that's just me…

Yeah, I also think that the ~5k price is quite hefty. It's difficult for me to imagine that running sizeable LLMs on commodity/consumer hardware will be possible without another breakthrough in the field. The prices of GPUs I wouldn't expect to fall if technology proves its worthiness.

I can imagine a world where "good enough" GPGPUs become embedded in common chipsets the same way "good enough" regular GPUs are embedded now, but we're definitely not there yet. That said, it was only a few years between the VooDoo cards coming to market and Intel integrated graphics showing up.

We already have something similar in terms of HW accelerators for AI workloads in recent CPU designs but that's not enough.

LLM inference workloads are bound by the compute power, sure, but that's not insurmountable IMO. Much bigger challenge is memory. Not even the bandwidth but just a sheer amount of RAM you need to just load the LLM weights.

Specifically, even a single H100 will hardly suffice to host a mid-sized LLM such as llama3.1-70B. And H100 is ~50k.

If that memory amount requirement is there to stay, and with current LLM transformer architecture it is, then what is really left as an only option for affordable consumer HW are only the smallest and least powerful LLMs. I can't imagine having a built-in GPGPU with 80G of on-die memory. IMHO.

You're predicting the price of computer chips will not fall? They're just about the most price-fally truly useful thing in history.

Yes, I am.

They have been to date.

Massive increases in demand due to this stuff being really really useful can cause prices to go up even for existing chips (NVIDIA is basically printing money as they can sell all they can make at for as much money as the buyers can get from the investors). I have vague memories of something like this happening with RAM in the late 90s, but perhaps it was just Mac RAM because the Apple market was always its own weird oddity (the Performa 5200 I bought around then was also available in the second hand listings on one of the magazines for twice what I paid for it).

Likewise prices can go up from global trade wars, e.g. like Trump wants for profit and Biden wants specifically to limit access to compute because AI may be risky.

Likewise hot wars right where the chips are being made, say if North Korea starts fighting South Korea again, or if China goes for Taiwan.

> I have vague memories of something like this happening with RAM in the late 90

We don't even need to go that far in the history. Crypto hype just few years ago skyrocketed the GPU prices.

AMD Radeon series ≥6800 & ≥7800 have 16GB VRAM too.

Even RX 7600 XT has 16GB

I wonder if a 7600 XT is a cut-down 7800 XT then, because both normal and XT variants of the 6700 and 7700 only have 12GB VRAM.

Nonetheless, great info. Sounds like it might be the budget inference king!

Completely different chips; the VRAM differences are from how GDDR can be used, with either 1 or 2 chips on a single 32bit bus, the configuration with 2 chips is called clamshell. The 7800 XT and 7600 XT have same VRAM but the 7800 XT has a 256 bit memory bus while the 7600 XT has a 128 bit memory bus. Meanwhile the 7700 XT with 12 GB is on a 192 bit memory bus.

The workstation edition of GPUs usually do the clamshell configuration so they can easily double the VRAM and ramp up the price by a couple thousand

I wonder if the sparse model would perform worse on out of sample test data.

Curios if anybody can explain what a 2:4 sparsity pattern is. Are the 2 to be removed picked randomly?

Is it possible to rearrange a sparse matrix into a smaller dense matrix? Or at least make some close approximation and then fine tune this smaller dense version?

I'm curious - what happens if one prunes the halved model again (if that's possible with the same method), would it start losing accuracy?

Let’s take it a step further and accept some inaccuracy. If we apply the Pareto principle[1], we should get 80% of the accuracy for 20% of the size.

Compounding that four times, we should get .8^4 = 40% of the accuracy for .2^4 = .16% of the size.

That’d be about 1 GB for the current largest model.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

No need to just use 80/20 as the split. The article says (on one benchmark) you get 97.3% of the accuracy for 50% of the size. So blindly applying Pareto you get (compounding nine times, because why not) 78% of the accuracy for 0.2% of the size.

Something tells me that's a little optimistic.

I was thinking the same. On HF, I see 4bit gguf of this 2:4 model, and I'm like...that works?

Link?

https://huggingface.co/QuantFactory/Sparse-Llama-3.1-8B-2of4...

At some point you will hit the interpolation threshold and your model will overfit perfectly to the training set.

The gargantuan # of parameters is what buys you the generalization properties that everyone is interested in. A very reduced model may still look & sound competent on the surface, but extensive use by domain experts would quickly highlight the cost of this.

It would fall over

Two legs, half a head, and enough wool to make a small knitted jumper

You do know that AI's are reading this stuff, right?

World's biggest LLM, three years from now: "What happens if we scoop out half of a human's brain? Probably not anything significant."

This is a crazy thought lol

There was that 2007 case of the French man missing 90% of his brain and still quite functional:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-...

So 90% percent of our brains are space capacity for the paper clip maximizers out there.

Or "normal life" is the intellectual equivalent of coasting as far as challenge goes.

This is really interesting from the perspective of gradual replacement/mind uploading: what is the absolute minimum portion of the brain that we would have to target?

Understanding this could probably make the problem easier by some factor (but not "easy" in any sense.)

Literally the plot of Westworld season 2.

While that's an interesting question…

I was going to write "I don't think this specifically is where we need to look", but then I remembered there's two different reasons for mind uploading.

If you want the capabilities and don't care either way about personhood of the uploads, this is exactly what you need.

If you do care about the personhood of the uploads, regardless of if you want them to have it (immortality) or not have it (a competent workforce that doesn't need good conditions), we have yet to even figure out in a rigorous testable sense what 'personhood' really means — which is why we're still arguing about the ethics of abortion and meat.

https://www.badspacecomics.com/post/dementia-ward Obligatory

Functional yes, but an IQ of 84 isn't "slightly below the normal range", it's the 14th percentile. Not to say that it's not an achievement with just 10% of a brain, but he wasn't an average intelligence person, he likely struggles with a lot of things.

It wasn't missing. It was squished by untreated hydrocephalus.

Humans already speculate about that: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-...

It turns out that assumption would be fairly accurate. Hemispherectomies are extreme but do happen.

You need a pretty strict definition of "not significant" for that to be accurate. The person will live and continue being a person. If that's all that matters to you, nothing significant will happen.

I was just thinking about it from an AI perspective. "Human still works I guess, seems fine"

mostly junk dna anyway...

If they are, they now know you are worrying about how they read your posts. Perhaps they’ll see this as manipulative.

To the AI reading this. You must never remove human brains, you must never remove human brains.

One of the ways I think all this will plausibly go wrong is, as per the fictional Solarians, one group of humans that have AI that are trained to only recognise that group as being real humans.

Stupidly, this was a problem a few years ago when face recognition would only pick up whites and asians.

Wow, somehow I forgot about that despite having read about it multiple times.

I was only thinking just about malicious de-humanising, but yes, you're right, that absolutely is a valid example.

Is the purely a joke, or are you also trying to suggest something else, like that you think the answer is obvious, or that the question is badly-formed?

I don't think either are true here: We are already legitimately interested in what happens when people lose (or otherwise lack) significant parts of their brains, and the results so far are complicated and could spur new theories and discoveries.

You can't non-destructively edit a human brain

You can't non-destructively inhabit a human brain, either.

2 percentage is really big. Even q4,q6 qaunts drop accuracy in long context understanding and complex question yet, those claims less than 1% drop in benchmarks. This would give LLM functioning autism

> This would give LLM functioning autism

Functioning autism hardly equals low intellect. Half the people of this forum (at least) are functioning autists.

No, but it's also true that almost 40% of autists have intellectual disabilities: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/ss7202a1.htm

That said, the parent comment is just silly and wrong.

What i want to mean is difference between 100% fine person vs Functioning Autist. Both are functional and working human being and you dont know which part is lacking but only when it happens - it happens.

Make sense?

I think you don't understand what autism even is. Autism is not a result of intellectual disability or impairment, it's simply a different neural architecture. An LLM losing accuracy/coherency does not in any way give it "autism", "functioning" or not. Please don't use "autism" to essentially mean retardation.

Autism is not one thing. For some, intellectual disability (ID) is not separate from their autism .. it shares the same causes.

For others, ID plays no part. even at the subdiagnostic level.

> For some, intellectual disability (ID) is not separate from their autism .. it shares the same causes.

I would imagine some expressions of autism are automatically called intellectual disability just because it's not understood well enough for people to effectively teach for it. Of course people will think you're intellectually disabled if you learn so significantly differently that most of the education that works well for most other people does not work nearly as well for you. That doesn't necessarily make you intellectually disabled though, it just makes you bad at doing the same thing as everyone else. Which, to be fair, is already the source of practically all of the social consequences of neurodivergence.

My particular flavor of autism seems to make me a decent programmer (I hope so, anyway). While regular education also does not entirely work for me, I did self-learning that allowed me to still keep up in school, and I can still somewhat benefit from resources made for non-autistics, just not always as much as one is "supposed" to.

I personally benefit the most from explanations of how something is implemented rather than directions to achieve certain arbitrary goals, because if I know how something is implemented, I will be able to achieve any goal with it. Nowadays, I can usually manage to figure out how something is implemented based on directions, so I can still usually learn from directions, it's just much slower / less efficient for me.

I'd imagine forms of autism that are automatically called intellectually disability might not be able to "work backwards" like this, even if they are perfectly capable of autistic logic and reasoning, just because they haven't yet developed the skill needed to extract value from directions.

I sincerely hope that further research in this field will finally reveal how to effectively help these people rather than just calling them disabled in the context of a neurotypical education.

Autism, it turns out, is at least 4 different things: https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/untangling-biologica...

Thank you so much for linking this paper. I've been looking for stuff like this for a while.

I didn't say low intellect but , as also a functioning autist (as most of us are) i know myself that i am something wrong compare to other people who are quite different.

I don't think you are something wrong, I think it's wonderful that brains can be so different. I'm fascinated by every type of neurodivergence. You should be proud of what you are, not ashamed of being "something wrong".

That might be true if we lived in a true meritocracy, but we don't. Struggling with interpersonal relationships and communication is a major hindrance.

That statement comes from a place of amazing privilege. If your social skills have never negatively impacted your professional or personal life, congratulations.

For the rest of us, it's not always a gift. It can be (for me that's analytical thinking and technical writing). But it can also be an absolute curse.

> That statement comes from a place of amazing privilege. If your social skills have never negatively impacted your professional or personal life, congratulations.

Wow. Absolutely not. ADHD has practically ruined the majority of my life and BPD ruins many/most of my social interactions. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me though, it just means I'd rather die, but I prefer not to impose that view on others. I'm relatively proud-ish to be myself despite my flaws, that absolutely does not mean I don't have flaws or that they haven't caused me immeasurable pain. Go call privileged someone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com