new | show | ask | jobs Github

jvanderbot 4 days ago

But it is a next token predictor.

Recursively invoked.

With carefully selected context.

And massive investment in RL to tune token selection.

And the ability to use cli tools on other folks' machines.

That's a powerful system built around a conceptually simple technology: Next token predictors.

▲

atleastoptimal 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes this is correct. The thing is not about the term next-token predictor being correct, but because of the connotative weight of that phrase as a implicit trivialization of LLM abilities, which is how it is often used.

▲

27183 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

From another point of view, campaigning against the "next token predictor model" is a means to implicitly inflate LLMs' abilities. Given all the other hype-inducing terminology we've seen--"reasoning", most egregiously IMO--this seems more likely. Is there a simple, more accurate mental model? From what I've seen of the literature, "next token predictor" is a very accurate first order description of what an LLM does, I can't really do better, therefore this or that connotative interpretation isn't giving me a great deal of pause.

▲

noduerme 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What is the motivation behind advocating against people trivializing LLMs? As in, why do you care?

▲

mofeien 4 days ago | parent [-]

Not the parent, but this incorrect trivialization of LLMs is often employed as a counterargument to the risks of AI such as "will take your job" or "will escape human control (again and worse)" or just "can possibly hurt me". And taking the easy feel-good cop-out instead of actively engaging with these questions is just.. harmful?

	▲	noduerme 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ah. I always thought it came from the LLM booster perspective of trying to prove emergent intelligence. A lot of very clever autocompletes working together can be incredibly dangerous.