A LLM already knows more tokens than the current one. It was mentioned in a blog post about how a LLM is doing haikus and co.
There are also structures in an LLM which allows it to 'estimate' numbers to a certain degree and doing other things.
Autoregressive LLMs generate tokens one at a time, disputing this is just plain wrong. What is true, however, is that in order to generate the next token autoregressive LLMs produce internal/hidden state about future tokens far past the next token so that it's not like the entire machinery of the algorithm deprives itself of representing where the sentence/text is headed.
So "emits the next token" and "has no representation of anything beyond the next token" are two different claims. What autoregressive LLMs cost as a consequence of strictly outputting the next token is commitment. Once a token is output there's no going back. There's no revision or means of correction, and sometimes this can lead an LLM to route around its own earlier mistakes or simply produce false statements/hallucinations instead of going back and fixing them.
If we suppose that the word "know" can sanely be applied to LLMs at all, then "A LLM already knows more tokens than the current one." seems to me like a perfectly reasonable restatement of that, and not any kind of misinterpretation.
> There's no revision or means of correction, and sometimes this can lead an LLM to route around its own earlier mistakes or simply produce false statements/hallucinations instead of going back and fixing them.
Yes. There is no contradiction. Similarly, when humans speak, we surely have in mind the next few words we're going to say (or at least partial information about them), and may not realize the fault in them until after hearing ourselves utter them. But LLMs are not trained to output "excuse me, I mean…" sorts of things, because they're expected to output primarily as text (which might possibly then be fed to TTS).
Probability(y | x)
> Prediction implies there is some "truth" or event or something that you can test against
there absolutely is a ground truth during training. the core predict-the-next-most-likely-token part of an LLM has a ground truth next-token. that's why you don't end up with generated text like: fish spurious send cattle chocolate phone happy meaning ball orange board canada.
> optimizes to predict the next token in training data
that is the optimization goal in training the next-most-likely-token core of an LLM, it basically translates to maximise the likelihood of predicting the next token x_i given the previous tokens
L(θ) = −log Π^n_{i=1} f_θ(x_i | x1, ..., x_{i−1})
(edit: sorry for the ADHD edits)
Respectfully, you are miles out of your depth. GPT-2 didn't use any reinforcement learning and is often given as a toy example. That release was 2019 and models now go through a various phases of training with different objective functions and optimizers.
> Autoregressive LLMs generate tokens one at a time, disputing this is just plain wrong.
next-token prediction i.e. the bit built during pre-training.
at no point in your reply to GP did you specify that you were referring to post-training. respectfully, it seems like this one is on you pal :shrug:
> GPT-2 didn't use any reinforcement learning and is often given as a toy example. That release was 2019 and models now go through a various phases of training with different objective functions and optimizers.
yeah. so? the toy example works for pre-training. see above.
again, the finished product wasn't what was discussed by GP, and you didn't clarify that you were switching to discussing RL (which is still probabilistic btw)
You aren't in this field. You are clearly wrong and just can't handle it.
To understand how an engine works, it's important to understand what a piston does as part of the engine.
The model weights change as the model goes through the training process. They aren't stored after pre-training is done and other weights are put somewhere else. It's more like pottery - the thing changes. It's not correct to say something is soft and malleable because it once was.
Yes. They do. You are absolutely right about that.
But the model architecture doesn't change as a result of the training process. A piston doesn't suddenly turn into a digital watch as a result of tuning an engine. Similarly, the transformer part of a GPT model doesn't suddenly turn into something else as a result of optimizing a loss function.
---
i've got other stuff to do, so i'm stopping here.
An aside, I finally do appreciate single column format now, makes it easier to convert to epub.
If this base is then trained using RL towards a different objective (maths and coding), the model becomes fundamentally a different thing and the recent models are clear evidence of that, regardless of they fact they remain autoregressive.
If you modify an engine to increase it’s output by adding sensors and an ECU, you don’t change the fact that is powered by gas.
If you use RL to increase the accuracy, it’s still a next token prediction, just more accurate.