Executing programs inside transformers with exponentially faster inference
percepta.ai
percepta.ai
What could you do with an LLM that can go into “focus mode” and generate tokens extremely rapidly? How much more powerful would a reasoning-token-generation phase be that can explore and cull large numbers of paths/hypotheses, so long as they are well defined? Does this have implications for multi-modal models and spatial reasoning?
As the paper suggests:
> These models could be useful in several modes: as a dedicated fast path paired with a slower, more general model; as part of a fast/slow hybrid architecture inside a single system; or as a speculative execution model that proposes tokens quickly while a regular-attention model verifies and accepts them. Regardless of their eventual capability ceiling, they already suggest a powerful systems primitive for speeding up larger models.
> As the paper suggests: ...
This is not a paper; it's just a blog post which is mentioned in this post's URL (i.e. .../blog/can-llms-be-computers).
Also it, at the end of the article, has a job advertisement (nothing unusual for a blog post):
"We are building these systems now, and we are hiring. If you want to work on problems at ..., join us."Truly, attention is all you need (I guess).
> This works, but the actual execution happened outside the model. The model specified the computation, then waited for an external system to carry it out. > Our transformer also emits a program, but instead of pausing for an external tool, it executes that program itself, step by step, within the same transformer.
What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop through this computation? Do you do so?
Why is it good that it's "inside" the model? Just making it more elegant and nice? The tool was already "inside" the overall hybrid system. What's the actual problem?
Not really sure what this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated is but it's poor form. If you have something to say about the text then say it. Otherwise leave baseless accusations out of it.
>What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop through this computation? Do you do so?....
It's pretty clearly an ideological thing. Some people are firmly on the 'some sort of symbolic logic is necessary' camp. From the article, 'A system that cannot compute cannot truly internalize what computation is.'
Some things are just interesting for the sake of it. This is one of those things. I don't agree with the authors on the above and I'm still glad they shared. It's a very interesting read regardless.
The idea itself was very cool, so I endured it. But it was not a pleasant read.
I could point out the individual phrases and describe the overall impression in detail, or I can just compactly communicate that by using the phrase "AI". If it bothers you, read it as "AI-like", so there is a pretension.
I have no problem with using AI for writing. I do it too, especially for documentation. But you need to read it and iterate with it and give it enough raw input context. If you don't give it info about your actual goals, intentions, judgments etc, the AI will substitute some washed-out, averaged-out no-meat-on-the-bone fluff that may sound good at first read and give you a warm wow-effect that makes you hit publish, but you read into it all the context that you have in your head, but readers don't have that.
Formatting and language is cheap now. We need a new culture around calling out sloppy work. You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago. But today you can easily slap an AI filter on it that will make it look grammatical and feel narratively engaging, now it's all about deeper content. But if one points that out, replies can always say "oh, you can't prove that, can you?"
I just find phrases like this a bit obnoxious at times.
>You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago.
Then why not just say that? It's rambling bla bla bla. What's so hard about that? Why invent a reason for issues, as if rambling articles didn't get written 5 years ago.
Like No, being written by an LLM or not is not the reason the article has no benchmarks or interpretability results. Those things would be there regardless if the author was interested in that, so again, it just seems there's little point in making such assertions.
But anyway, yes, I can also just move on to the next article. Most of the time I indeed do that.
The subtle ones like this I don’t mind too much, as long as they get the content correct, which in this case leaves quite a bit to be desired.
I’m also noticing that some people around me appear to just be oblivious to some LLM signals that bother me a lot, so people consume media differently.
I absolutely do believe that AI generated content needs to be called out, although at this point it’s safe to say that pretty much all online content is LLM written.
As to why people call this out without going into great detail about the problems with the actual text, it's because this is happening all over the place and it's very disrespectful to readers, who dig into an article that looks very well written on the surface, only to discover it's a lot of labor to decode and often (but not always) a total waste of time. Asking for a critical report of the text is asking even more of a reader who already feels duped.
Admonishing someone for correctly identifying AI-written or AI-edited blog posts is poor form, friend.
It is without a doubt written by an LLM. All of the telltale signs are there. I work with these tools 8-20 hours a day and after a while the verbiage and grammatical structures stick out like a sore thumb.
Get off the high horse. I too think this is a very interesting read. I was fascinated with the subject, but the presentation was nauseatingly distracting and immediately sets off yellow flags about how Percepta operates, and what kind of quality they're willing to settle with. It tells me they are more interested in appearances and superficiality.
The numbers that are there categorically cannot be trusted, because hallucinating those details is quite common for models. There is simply no indication that a human adequately proof-read this and therefore any of its claims must be taken with a grain of salt. Don't forget the recent Cloudflare+Matrix debacle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46781516
I share the same concerns as OP; this post lacks metrics and feels like someone did something cool and raced to get an AI to post about it, instead of giving it a proper treatment.
From my point of view, all you've done is said a lot of nonsense and fabricated a convoluted explanation for why you think the text is bad. I'm fine on my horse thanks.
You claimed "this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated" is "poor form", attacking the parent commenter by claiming they are lying about the nature of the content. However, multiple people have pointed out the clear signs which you missed, and the consensus is that you were wrong. Now you suddenly don't care about this point, and have introduced a new argument instead.
"From my point of view, all you've done is said a lot of nonsense and fabricated a convoluted explanation for why you think the text is bad"
What a bad-faith response. Categorically dismissive, vague, antagonistic and ultimately failing to critically engage with anything I said.
I didn't miss anything. I never cared about it one way or another. What clear signs have people pointed out ? This is the problem. It's apparently so obvious yet even the original commenter admits "It's things humans do too". What is clear about that ?
All knowledge is ultimately fallible, but ignoring or not being able to appreciate the high statistical likelihood of this article being LLM edited/generated doesn't change reality.
You're asking me to share my expertise with you so that you can understand, but your antagonistic overtones make it not feel worth the time and effort. Other readers have also pointed out that it has characteristic idiosyncrasies. Feel free to look into it yourself, but it would also be wise to learn to defer these kinds of attacks until you have all the information.
Especially egregious to me is the claim "Because the execution trace is part of the forward pass, the whole process remains differentiable: we can even propagate gradients through the computation itself". This is total weasel-language: e.g. we can propagate any weights through any transformer architecture and all sorts of other much more insane architectural designs, but that is irrelevant if you don't have a continuous and differentiable loss function that can properly weight partially-correct solutions or the likelihood / plausibility of arbitrary model outputs. You also need a clearer source of training data (or way to generate synthetic data).
So for e.g. AlphaFold, we needed to figure out a loss function that continuously approximated the energy configuration of various molecular configurations, and this is what really allowed it to actually do something. Otherwise, you are stuck with slow and expensive reinforcement-based systems.
The other tells are garbage analogies ("Humans cannot fly. Building airplanes does not change that; it only means we built a machine that flies for us"). Such analogies add nothing to understanding, and indeed distract from serious/real understanding. Only dupes and fools think you can gain any meaningful understanding of mathematics and computer science through simplistic linguistic analogies and metaphors without learning the proper actual (visuspatial, logical, etc) models and understanding. Thus, people with real and serious mathematical understanding despise such trite metaphors.
But then, since understanding something like this properly requires serious mathematical understanding, copy like that is a huge tell that the authors / company / platform puts bullshitting and sales above truth and correctness. I.e., yes, a huge yellow flag.
Like, you have a great point (the benefit of this approach isn't explained), but that's a mistake humans frequently make.
Cadence and rhythm: LLMs produce sentences with an extremely low variability in the number of clauses. Normal people run on from time to time, (bracket in lots of asides), or otherwise vary their cadence and rhythm within clauses more than LLMs tend to.
Section headings that are intended to be "cute" and "snappy" or "impactful" rather than technically correct or compact: this is especially a tell when the cuteness/impactfulness is deeply mismatched with the seriousness or technical depth of the subject matter.
Horrible trite analogies that show no actual real understanding of the actual logical, mathematical, or visuo-spatial relationships involved. I.e. analogies are based on linguistic semantics, and not e.g. mathematical isomorphism or core dynamics. "Humans cannot fly. Building airplanes does not change that; it only means we built a machine that flies for us". Can't imagine a more retarded and useless analogy for something as complex as the article topic.
Verbose repetition: The article defines two workarounds: "tool use" and "agentic" orchestration, then defines them, then in the paragraph immediately following, says the exact same thing. There are basically multiple (small paragraphs) that all say nothing at all more than the sentence "LLMs do not reliably perform long, exact computations on their own, so in practice we often delegate the execution to external tools or orchestration systems".
Pseudo-profound bullshit: (https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006999). E.g. "A system that cannot compute cannot truly internalize what computation is." There is thankfully not too much of this in the article, and it appears mostly early on.
Missing key / basic logic (or failing to mention such points clearly) when this would be strongly expected by any serious practitioner or expert: E.g. in this article, we should have seen some simple nice centered LaTeX showing the scaled dot-product self attention equation, and then some simple notation to represent the `.chunk` call, and subsequent linear projection, something like H = [H1 | H2], or etc., I shouldn't have to squint at two small lines of PyTorch code to find this. It should be clear immediately this model is not trained, and this is essentially just compiling a VM into a Transformer, and not revealed more clearly only at the end.
Before it needs to write the code and have an external program execute it. Here it can change its mind mid execution. Kinda like what was observed in the CoT’s ah ha moment
> Is it that you can backprop through this computation? Do you do so?
With respect, I feel that you may not have read the article.
> Because the execution trace is part of the forward pass, the whole process remains differentiable: we can even propagate gradients through the computation itself. That makes this fundamentally different from an external tool. It becomes a trainable computational substrate that can be integrated directly into a larger model.
and,
> By storing points across nested convex hulls, this yields a decoding cost of O(k+log n).
and,
> Regardless of their eventual capability ceiling, they already suggest a powerful systems primitive for speeding up larger models.
So yes, and yes.
> Where are the benchmarks?
Not clear what they should benchmark it against. They do compare speed to a normal KV Cache. As for performance.. if it's actually executing a Sudoku solver with a 100% success rate, it seems pretty trivial to find any model doing < 100% success rate. Sure, it would be nice to see the data here, agree with you there.
Personally I think it would be really interesting to see if this method can be combined with a normal model MoE-style. It is likely possible, the router module should pick up quite quickly that it predicts the right tokens for some subset of problems deterministically. I like the idea of embed all sorts of general solvers directly into the model, like a prolog solver for example. In fact it never would have occurred to me to just go straight for WASM, pretty interesting choice to directly embed a VM. But it makes me wonder what "smaller" interpreters could be useful in this context.
The right thing to benchmark against isn't a regular transformer, it's a transformer that writes programs that are then interpreted. They have a little visual demo where it looks faster but only because they make Python absurdly slow, and it's clearly not meant to be a real benchmark.
I spent the whole article thinking, wow, cool, but also ... how is this better than an LLM steering a regular computer? The closest we get is a statement about the need to "internalize what computation is" which doesn't say anything to me.
Fundamentally, running actual instructions on a real CPU is always going to be faster than running them via a neural network. So the interesting part is where they say you can backprop through it, but, ok, backprop is for cases where we don't know how to encode a function using strict logic. Why would you try and backprop through a Sudoku solver? It's probably my imagination is just limited but I could have used more on that.
> What's the benefit? Is it speed? Where are the benchmarks? Is it that you can backprop through this computation? Do you do so?
The correct parsing of this is: "What's the benefit? [...] Is it [the benefit] that you can backprop through this computation? Do you do so?"
There are no details about training nor the (almost-certainly necessarily novel) loss function that would be needed to handle partial / imperfect outputs here, so it is extremely hard to believe any kind of gradient-based training procedure was used to determine / set weight values here.
my understanding was that they are not training at all, which would explain that. they are compiling an interpreter down to a VM that has the shape of a transformer.
ie they are calculating the transformer weights needed to execute the operations of the machine they are generating code for.
EDIT: Actually, they do make this clear(ish) at the very end of the article, technically. But there is a huge amount of vagueness and IMO outright misleading / deliberately deceptive stuff early on (e.g. about potential differentiability of their approach, even though they admit later they aren't sure if the differentiable approach can actually work for what they are doing). It is hard to tell what they are actually claiming unless you read this autistically / like a lawyer, but that's likely due to a lack of human editing and too much AI assistance.
If we take the human brain as an example, it's pretty bad at computation. Multiply two 10-digit numbers takes forever, despite the enormous size of its neural network. It's not the right tool for the job - a few deterministic logic gates could do that much more efficiently. That same circuit can't do much else, but multiplying, oh boy, it's good at that! Why do we think that artificial neural nets would be the right tool for that job? What's wrong with letting the LLM reach out to an ALU to do the calculation, just like a human would do? It's surely going to be quicker and require less energy.
If we never try, we'll never know. I wouldn't be surprised if there is something to gain from a form of deterministic computation which is still integrated with the NN architecture. After all, tool calls have their own non-trivial overhead.
I'm asking whether it's a desirable end state.
Not necessarily pure number crunching but the boundary between rote algorithms and fuzzy intuition based models that humans in particular excel at.
Shame there are no weights released - let alone the "compiler" tool they used to actually synthesize computational primitives into model weights. It seems like a "small model" system that's amenable to low budget experiments, and I would love to see what this approach can be pushed towards.
I disagree with the core premise, it's basically the old neurosymbolic garbage restated, but embedding predefined computational primitives into LLMs could have some uses nonetheless.
Which the blog post brings up as a research direction, but never actually elaborates upon. And the interface between the two is a hard problem.
I'll check out the link though, thanks.
Some people in the "symbolic AI" camp didn't take the loss well, so they pivoted towards "ML is not real AI and it needs a symbolic component to be a real AI", which is: the neurosymbolic garbage.
This work isn't exactly that, and I do think it can amount to something useful, but the justification for it reeks of something similar.
I think you're confusing various different things as "neurosymbolic AI". There is a NeSy symposium and I happen to have met many of the people there, and they are not GOFAI ideologues, rather they recognise the obvious limitations of neural nets (i.e. they're crap at deduction, though great at induction) and they look for ways to address them. Most of that crowd also has a predominantly statistical ML/ neural nets background, with symbolic AI as an afterthought.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that "ML is not real AI" and I mainly move in symbolic AI circles. I would check my sources, if I were you.
Anwyay, honestly, this is 2026, there is no sensible reason to be polarised about symbolic vs. statistical AI (or whatever distinction anyone wants to make). An analogy I like to make is as follows: a jetliner is a flying machine, a helicopter is a flying machine. We can use both for their advantages and disadvantages, but a flying machine is something too useful to give up on any one kind for ideological reasons. The practical benefits overwhelmingly make up for any ideological concerns (e.g. "jets bad" or "propellers bad").
And just to be clear, symbolic AI is still in rude health: automated theorem proving, planning and scheduling, program verification and model checking, constraint satisfaction, discrete optimisation, SAT solving, all those are fields where symbolic approaches are dominant, and where neural nets have not made significant inroads in many decades; nor are they likely to, not any more than symbolic approaches are likely to make any inroads in e.g. machine vision, or speech recognition. And that's just fine: lots of tools, lots of problems solved.
One is near the end of its potential while another is only picking up steam.
In many ways, the space ML dominates now is the space of "all the things symbolic approaches suck ass at". Which is a very wide space with many desirable things in it.
Lots of the successes by LLMs that have been much celebrated rely on these.
There's no sense in which symbolic AI is at the end of its life and if you pay close attention you'll see that LLMs are trying to do all the things that symbolic AI is good at: major examples being reasoning, and planning from world models.
And as nextos says in the sibling comment most of the recent successes of LLMs in tasks that go beyond language generation, e.g. solving math olympiad problems, are the result of combining LLMs with symbolic verifiers.
>> While ML is cracking open entirely new fields - and might go all the way to AGI, the way it's going now.
I don't agree. Everything that neural nets do today, speech recognition, object identification in images, machine translation, language generation, program synthesis, game playing, protein folding, research automation, I mean every single thing really, is a task that comes from the depths of AI history. There's a big discussion to be had about why those tasks are "AI" tasks in the first place and what they have to do with "intelligence" in the broader sense (e.g. cats are intelligent but they can't generate any sort of text) but this discussion is constantly postponed as we all breathlessly run up the hill that neural nets are climbing. When we get to the top and find it was the wrong hill to climb, maybe we'll have that discussion at last, or maybe the entire industry, academia in tow, will run after the Next Big Thing in AI™ all over again. But- cracking open new fields? Nah. Not really.
AGI is not going to happen any time soon though. We have no idea what we're doing in terms of reproducing intelligence, that much is clear.
It's also the kind of thinking that results in "neurosymbolic garbage is good actually".
What neural nets do today is basically "everything humans do". There is no longer a list of "things computers can't do" - just a list of things computers do worse than the top 1% of humans. Ever shrinking.
Speaking of self-driving cars' AIs, while they have plenty of machine learning components, e.g. for vision, SLAM, and so on, they are largely hand-coded, rule-based systems. Just like the good old days of GOFAI.
>> The whole notion of "we need to know what intelligence is exactly to reproduce it" is completely and utterly wrong.
Can you explain why it's completely wrong?
You haven't heard about VLAs in robotics.
Our brains can also simulate turing machines, slowly. We automated that with computers that are faster and more reliable. So why not allow a model to use external much faster and reliable tools, just as we do?
I'm not convinced at all that this is the best way to reduce latency; there are many other ways of doing that.
Having a calculator in our brains would be handy of course, but a gigahertz multi core computer is still going to be better at anything that needs to do a lot of computation and or a lot of data.
It's a nice bit of engineering, if you don't subscribe to YAGNI. If you do, you must ask the obvious question of what capability this delivers that wasn't available before. The only answer I've got is that someone must have been a bit chilly and couldn't figure out the thermostat
1. The article presents that calling out to a tool like python is "expensive" because of the overhead of forking a process, loading up the python env etc, but why not just eliminate that overhead and embed WebAssembly so this "tool call" is near zero? This feels very similar to the discussion in the 90's around the overhead of threads v.s. processes or kernel space v.s. user space. Could even go further and have a running beam vm so the LLM can write elixir which is ideal for LLM's that stream out code? Elixir programs will be a lot shorter than webassembly.
2. The core argument stated is "A system that cannot compute cannot truly internalize what computation is." The idea being that it could write a program, execute it and by seeing all of the steps maybe even part way through stop and change its mind or when writing new programs write them better, aka be able to debug on the fly?
3. Not mentioned, but there is a 3rd x factor that LLM's will use this new found computation engine to do overall better at "thinking". Computing in very unexpected ways and to unexpected problems. Maybe it would do dramatically better at some benchmark because of this?
Unfortunately these are not explored and it is just an execution engine even resulting in the conclusion stating "arbitrary programs can be compiled directly into the transformer weights, bypassing the need to represent them as token sequences at all." which goes to point number 1 of if we are compiling to weights why not just optimize the tool calling?
The way this is formulated, almost sounds like they think that giving llms this ability will bring them closer to having experiences of computation or smth? Weird?
It is unclear to me how this WASM interpreter is / could be deterministic.
I don’t want to say too much too soon, but I am pretty excited about this.
Very light on details that article is.
Because the execution trace is part of the forward pass, the whole process remains differentiable: we can even propagate gradients through the computation itself. That makes this fundamentally different from an external tool. It becomes a trainable computational substrate that can be integrated directly into a larger model.
[...] *the compilation machinery we built for generating those weights** can go further. In principle, arbitrary programs can be compiled directly into the transformer weights, bypassing the need to represent them as token sequences at all. [...] [my emphasis]
Weights become a deployment target: instead of learning software-like behavior, models contain compiled program logic.
If logic can be compiled into weights, then gradient descent is no longer the only way to modify a model. Weight compilation provides another route for inserting structure, algorithms, and guarantees directly into a network.
> The key technical unlock is to restrict lookup heads to head dimension 2, which enables a decoding path where the dominant retrieval/update operations can be computed in log time in the sequence length (for this structured executor regime), rather than by a full prefix-sized attention sweep.
edit: i understand how hullkv works now. very clever.
I dont understand why this strategy is applicable only to "code tokens"
lastly, im not sure why wasm is a good target, iirc wasm seems to be really inefficient (not so much in code but in expressivity). i wonder if that curtails the llms ability to plan higher order stuff (since its always forced to think in the small)
Yes, there is a monstrous lack of detail here and you should be skeptical about most of the article claims. The language is also IMO non-standard (serious people don't talk about self-attention as lookup tables anymore, that was never a good analogy in the first place) and no good work would just use language to express this, there would also be a simple equation showing the typical scaled dot-product attention formula, and then e.g. some dimension notation/details indicating which matrix (or inserted projection matrix) got some dimension of two somewhere, otherwise, the claims are inscrutable (EDIT: see edit below).
There are also no training details or loss function details, both of which would be necessary (and almost certainly highly novel) to make this kind of thing end-to-end trainable, which is another red flag.
EDIT: The key line seems to be around:
gate, val = ff_in(x).chunk(2, dim=-1)
good analogy otherwise, wasn't hash tables the motivation for the kv tables?
When you really get into this stuff, you tend to see the real motivations as either e.g. kernel smoothing (see comments / discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46357675#46359160) or as encoding correlations / feature similarities / multiplicative interactions (see e.g. broad discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46523887). IMO most insights in LLM architectures and layers tends to come from intuitions about projections, manifolds, dimensionality, smoothing/regularization, overparameterization, matrix conditioning, manifold curvature and etc.
There are almost zero useful understandings or insights to be gained from the lookup-table analogy, and most statistical explanations in papers are also post-hoc and require assumptions (convergence rates, infinite layers, etc) that are never shown to clearly hold for actual models that people use. Obviously these AI models work very well for a lot of tasks, but our understanding of why they do is incredibly poor and simplistic, for the most part.
Of course, this is just IMO, and you can see some people in the linked threads do seem to find the lookup table analogies useful. I doubt such people have spent much time building novel architectures, experimenting with different layers, or training such models.
It is hard to square with the article's claims about differentiability and otherwise lack of clarity / obscurantism about what they are really doing here (they really are just compiling / encoding a simple computer / VM into a slightly-modified transformer, which, while cool, is really not what they make it sound like at all).
Both examples are of a system we created to abstract most of the hard work.
I think a more important concept here is that the term "AI" has a lot of built-in assumptions, one of which being that it is (or will be) super intelligent, and so folks like the author here think (correctly) that it's important for the AI to be actually doing the work itself.
Of course you can also just simulate this by peppering your code with print statements, so maybe it's not that useful in the end after all.
Hey, give it also access to the dump of its weights and way to propose updates so it can see and tinker its brain directly.
IMHO the key point at which this technique has an unfair advantage vs a traditional interpreter is here.
How disruptive is it to have differentiability? To me it would mean that some tweaking-around can happen in an LLM-program at train-time; like changing a constant, or switching from a function call to another function. Can we gradient-descent effectively inside this huge space? How different is it from tool-calling from a pool of learned programs (think github but for LLM programs written in classic languages)?
That having been said, many LLMs are being run on SIMD GPUs, in warps, basically they are just doing a lot of vector multiplications, activation functions and kv self attention (the expendive step).
The issue is we want the LLMs to be one-way through the layers, whereas turing-complete programming languages support loops and no well-defined stopping time. You can stick a simple computer into an LLM, but it won’t be able to do long loops.
However, for these specific workloads, the need to attend only to the latest state is indeed a huge optimization! Gone is the need for n^2 complexity that dominates the cost, now it is (log n)^2 attention which is far smaller.
Computing is going to be so weird in a few decades, writing programs faster than I can speak with full semantic introspection into every byte of code.
> Because the execution trace is part of the forward pass, the whole process remains differentiable: we can even propagate gradients through the computation itself. That makes this fundamentally different from an external tool. It becomes a trainable computational substrate that can be integrated directly into a larger model.
What was a good point, mentioned by @hedgehog in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47367986), is that tool-calls break batching a lot, so there could be huge efficiency gains at scale if you can just pass through a computation sub-network (even if that sub-net is frozen and can't be updated, and is programmed in manually rather than trained in).
Why on Earth you'd want that sub-net to be a clunky transformer rather than just an efficient, GPU-accelerated custom non-trainable layer, though, is unclear to me.
While we do not yet know whether exact softmax attention
can be maintained with the same efficiency, it is easy to
approximate it with k-sparse softmax attention: retrieve
the top-k keys and perform the softmax only over those
So the issue isn't if there aren't ways to effectively approximate their approach, from a strictly numerical approximation standpoint, it is that other factors matter much more in optimization when training on actual data.
Interesting that they had to make it functional and immutable because they can't mutate the past tokens.
Also, if it's execution is purely deterministic, you probably don't need non linearity in the layers, right?
You need non-linearity in self-attention because it encodes feature / embedding similarities / correlations (e.g. self-attention is kernel smoothing) and/or multiplicative interactions, it has nothing to do with determinism/indeterminism. Also, LLMs are not really nondeterministic in any serious way, that all just comes from tweaks and optimizations that are not at all core to the architecture.
I don't see how this could work as an LLM given that, but the article is missing a huge amount of other crucial details too.
If you just take the most probable token every time, the system becomes fully deterministic. We don't do this as the output becomes more stiff and less creative.
Temperature is not at all core to LLMs, it is something that rather makes the outputs more varied and desirable for human consumption generally. It is trivial to set to zero for applications like this.
On CPUs, the models are essentially fully deterministic, even with FP accuracy, and most common kernels have reproducible (albeit slower) variants even on GPUs. Otherwise, yes, FP non-associativity on GPUs is the only real source of randomness in inference.
The other issue arises from batch invariance, but this is a problem that occurs only at scale when serving multiple users / inputs have some randomness too. You can (usually) trivially eliminate this by controlling what goes in the batch or making the batch size be one. There are also other more clever mitigations for this, none of which are secrets.
EDIT - Forgot reference: https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in...
I am talking strictly about computing, not garbage in garbage out IO.
Extended thinking passes are just more of the same. The entire methodology exists merely to provide additional context for the autoregression process. There is no traditional computation occurring
they created a new training dataset which also has computation solving step by step (multiplying two numbers or playing sudoku) and then trained a transformer on it- as a result, the model performs the computation(multiplying two numbers) "inside" itself instead of calling calculator (or python)?
++ And they also figured out how to make attention faster?
I also feel a bit of bad smell from the article. Sounding revolutionary with no details or clear explanation.
But IMO this is BS because I don't know how one would get or generate training data, or how one would define a continuous loss function that scores partially-correct / plausible outputs (e.g. is a "partially correct" program / algorithm / code even coherent, conceptually).
To answer dwa3592, it's always possible to set the weights of a neural net by hand, albeit extremely fiddly and normally only done "on paper". This is e.g. how the Turing-completeness of RNNs was shown back in the '90s:
On the computational power of neural nets
But the right question is, should they?
But maybe it's just too genius and I don't understand it.
I'm not sure about the rest but a significant problem with high frequency tool calling (especially in training) is that it breaks batching.
I'm less interested in turning programs into transformers and more interested in turning programs into subnetworks within large language models.