I don't think this is a correct explanation of how things work these days. RL has really changed things.
You can make that claim about anything: "The human isn't being creative when they write a novel, they're just summoning patterns at typing time".
AlphaGo taught itself that move, then recalled it later. That's the bar for human creativity and you're holding AlphaGo to a higher standard without realizing it.
AlphaGo didn't teach itself that move. The verifier taught AlphaGo that move. AlphaGo then recalled the same features during inference when faced with similar inputs.
Ok so it sounds like you want to give the rules of Go credit for that move, lol.
I don't really play Go but I play chess, and it seems to me that most of what humans consider creativity in GM level play comes not in prep (studying opening lines/training) but in novel lines in real games (at inference time?). But that creativity absolutely comes from recalling patterns, which is exactly what OP criticizes as not creative(?!)
I guess I'm just having trouble finding a way to move the goalpost away from artificial creativity that doesn't also move it away from human creativity?
Mixing the two (training and construction) is rhetorically convenient (anthropomorphization), but holds us back in critically assessing a model’s capabilities.
The opposite is true as well. Emergent complexity isn’t limitless. Just like early physicists tried to explain the emergent complexity of the universe through experimentation and theory, so should we try to explain the emergent complexity of LLMs through experimentation and theory.
Specifically not pseudoscience, though.
- OP asked for someone to make a logical argument for the separation of “training” from “model”
- I made the argument
- You cherry picked an argument against my specific example and made an appeal to emergent complexity
- I pointed out that emergent complexity isn’t limitless
- “the only people making unsupported claims in this thread are those trying to deflate LLM capabilities”What does linear regression have to do with the limitations of a stacked transfer ? Absolutely nothing. This is the problem here. You don't know shit and just make up whatever. You can see people doing the same thing in GPT-1, 2, 3, 4 threads all telling us why LLMs will never be able to do thing it manages to do later.
lol. Why so emotionally charged? Are you perhaps worried that you’ve invested too much time and effort into a technology that may not deliver what influencers have been promising for years? Like a proverbial bagholder?
> What does linear regression have to do with the limitations of a stacked transfer ? Absolutely nothing. This is the problem here.
We’re talking about fundamental concepts of modeling in this subthread. LLMs, despite what influencers may tell you, are simply models. I’ll even throw you a bone and admit they are models for intelligence. But they are still models, and therefore all of the things that we have learned about “models” since Plato are still relevant. Most importantly, since Plato we’ve known that “models” have fundamental limits vs. what they try to represent, otherwise they would be a facsimile, not a model.
> You can see people doing the same thing in GPT-1, 2, 3, 4 threads all telling us why LLMs will never be able to do thing it manages to do later.
I hope you enjoy winning these imaginary arguments against these imaginary comments. The fundamental limitations of LLMs discussed since GPT-1 have never been addressed by changing the architecture of the underlying model. All of the improvements we’ve experienced have been due to (1) improvements in training regime and (2) harnesses / heuristics (e.g. Agents).
Now, care to provide a counterargument that shows you know a little more than “shit”?
Okay, but the brain is also “just a model” of the world in any meaningful sense, so that framing does not really get you anywhere. Calling something a model does not, by itself, establish a useful limit on what it can or cannot do. Invoking Plato here just sounds like pseudo-profundity rather than an actual argument.
>I hope you enjoy winning these imaginary arguments against these imaginary comments. The fundamental limitations of LLMs discussed since GPT-1 have never been addressed by changing the architecture of the underlying model. All of the improvements we’ve experienced have been due to (1) improvements in training regime and (2) harnesses / heuristics (e.g. Agents).
If a capability appears once training improves, scale increases, or better inference-time scaffolding is added, then it was not demonstrated to be a 'fundamental impossibility'.
That is the core issue with your argument: you keep presenting provisional limits as permanent ones, and then dressing that up as theory. A lot of people have done that before, and they have repeatedly been wrong.
Physicists had the real world to verify theories and explanations against.
So far anyone 'explaining the emergent complexity of LLMs through experimentation and theory' is essentially just making stuff up nobody can verify.
No. AlphaGo developed a heuristic by playing itself repeatedly, the heuristic then noticed the quality of that move in the moment.
Heuristics are the core of intelligence in terms of discovering novelty, but this is accessible to LLMs in principle.