▲ | vidarh 4 days ago | |||||||
> But this limit doesn't exist if you consider the generation of the entire text: Suddenly, you do have a recurrence, which is the prediction loop itself: The LLM can "store" information in a generated token and receive that information back as input in the next loop iteration. Now consider that you can trivially show that you can get an LLM to "execute" on step of a Turing machine where the context is used as an IO channel, and will have shown it to be Turing complete. > I think this structure makes it quite hard to really say how much reasoning is possible. Given the above, I think any argument that they can't be made to reason is effectively an argument that humans can compute functions outside the Turing computable set, which we haven't the slightest shred of evidence to suggest. | ||||||||
▲ | Xelynega 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
It's kind of ridiculous to say that functions computable by turing computers are the only ones that can exist(and that trained llms are Turing computers). What evidence do you have for either of these, since I don't recall any proof that "functions computable by Turing machines" is equal to the set of functions that can exist. And I don't recall pretrained llms being proven to be Turing machines. | ||||||||
|