▲ | skissane 6 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> but none of the LLMs (open source or not) are capable of backtracking even though there is plenty of room for a basic Prolog interpreter. This seems like a very obvious shortcoming to me that no amount of smooth approximation can overcome. The fundamental autoregressive architecture is absolutely capable of backtracking… we generate next token probabilities, select a next token, then calculate probabilities for the token thereafter. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from “rewinding” to an earlier token, making a different selection and replaying from that point. The basic architecture absolutely supports it. Why then has nobody implemented it? Maybe, this kind of backtracking isn’t really that useful. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | versteegen 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, but anyway, LLMs themselves are perfectly capable of backtracking reasoning while sampling is run forwards only, in the same way humans do: by deciding something doesn't work and trying something else. Humans DON'T time travel backwards in time and never have the erroneous thought in the first place. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | measurablefunc 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Where is this spelled out formally and proven logically? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|