I think the better way to look at it is that probabilistic models seem to be an accurate model for human thought. We don't really know how humans think, but we know that they probably aren't violating information theoretic principles, and we observe similar phenomena when we compare humans with LLMs.

Yep, just like like looking at a birds feather through a microscope explains the principles of flight…

Complexity theory doesn’t have a mathematics (yet), but that doesn’t mean we can’t see that it exists. Studying the brain at the lowest levels haven’t lead to any major insights in how cognition functions.

If you observe the failure modes of current models, you see that they fail in ways that align with probabilistic token prediction.

I don't mean that the textual prediction is simple, it's very advanced and it learns all kinds of relationships, patterns and so on.

But it doesn't have a real model and thinking process relating to the the actual problem. It thinks about what text could describe a solution that is linguistically and language semantically probable.

Since human language embedds so many of the logics and ground truths that's good enough to result in a textual description that approximate or nails the actual underlying problem.

And this is why we see them being able to solve quite advanced problems.

I admit that people are wondering now, what's different about human thinking? Maybe we do the same, you invent a probable sounding answer and then check if it was correct, rinse and repeat until you find one that works.

But this in itself is a big conjecture. We don't really know how human thinking works. We've found a method that works well for computers and now we wonder if maybe we're just the same but scaled even higher or with slight modifications.

I've heard from ML experts though that they don't think so. Most seem to believe different architecture will be needed, world models, model ensembles with various specialized models with different architecture working together, etc. That LLMs fundamentaly are kind of limited by their nature as next token predictors.

Yes exactly.

The text of human natural language that it is trained on encodes the solutions to many problems as well as a lot of ground truths.

The way I think of it is. First you have a random text generator. This generative "model" in theory can find the solution to all problems that text can describe.

If you had a way to assert if it found the correct solution, you could run it and eventually it would generate the text that describes the working solution.

Obviously inefficient and not practical.

What if you made it so it skipped generating all text that aren't valid sensical English?

Well now it would find the correct solution in way less iterations, but still too slow.

What if it generated only text that made sense to follow the context of the question?

Now you might start to see it 100-shot, 10-shot, maybe even 1-shot some problems.

What if you tuned that to the max? Well you get our current crop of LLMs.

What else can you do to make it better?

Tune the dataset, remove text that describe wrong answers to prior context so it learns not to generate those. Add more quality answers to prior context, add more problems/solutions, etc.

Instead of generating the answer to a mathematical equation the above way, generate the Python code to run to get the answer.

Instead of generating the answer to questions about current real world events/facts (like the weather). Have it generate the web search query to find it.

If you're asking a more complex question, instead of generating the answer directly, have it generate smaller logical steps towards the answer.

Etc.