alt text
Crudely drawn drawing of a person telling a computer “say ‘i am in pain’”. The computer replies with “> I AM IN PAIN”. The person then says “oh my god.”
Crudely drawn drawing of a person telling a computer “say ‘i am in pain’”. The computer replies with “> I AM IN PAIN”. The person then says “oh my god.”
You can interrogate the model too, and it’ll answer according to the context. Why are you assuming that the brain doesn’t do tricks but everything AI does is? We too have memories and since we can’t store them all, compression is performed (supposedly while sleeping), based on a few algorithms, some we understand more than others.
We, in creating LLMs, have copied the human brain as much as we can, hence why the core function is so similar. True, LLMs use a lot of “tricks” like you said, but if the same input produces the same output, who cares if the algorithm is different?
For example, take episodic memory. In humans, it’s a type of memory that can be conjured at will. Typically not acquired during training (or, in humans, generic evolution) but rather through experience of the individual. LLMs simulate this by taking notes, then later on running a specific command to recall the specific part of those notes that matter for their current task. From an outsider’s perspective, it’s even more accurate than episodic memory in humans since it can grow almost infinitely and suffers no loss of details. Yet it is a trick, therefore it must be bad.
Let me remind you, evolution took place over 4 billions years, modern LLMs has pretty much been around for two. Evolution never cared to make us good, it just wanted us to reproduce. We know that it’s possible for humans to produce fresh cells, we do it when we have kids. Why then can’t we use those fresh cells for ourselves to be effectively immortal? Evolution doesn’t care. Evolution as a process is flawed, and made humans flawed too.
Why then is it that when we change anything in the way flawed humans think, it’s seen as bad, even if by all metrics it’s not?
What I said applies to all machine learning models ever created: inference does not make any impact on a model. Any question you ask it slides off of it just like, apparently, any attempt to explain things to you.
Have you done any ML? Because if you had, you’d know that statement is complete bullshit.
Of course. What I said is like the simplest concept to understand about machine learning, the difference between training and inference.
Then you know that there is nothing stopping you from training during inference, or to modify weights in reponse to inference. It just so happens to be more efficient to train the next model instead, but again that goes back to what I said, there is no need to copy humans in this because humans aren’t efficient in everything, and certainly not in training.
I’m talking about the way things are, yes. Training is an optional step after inference that calculates the error and modifies parameters.
Does it matter whether it’s part of it or done immediately after? For all intents and purposes it’s the same thing. Like I said, if the input and outputs are the same, what does it matter how the process works?
From the user’s perspective, where one question results in many inference calls, it would look like the LLM learns while it works, assuming such training would be enabled, which they obviously wouldn’t but could do.
I’m not talking about training, the paper this post is talking about is not about training, and no cloud llms allow their users to do training, so I have no idea what relevance it could have to this conversation. Maybe training is indeed really painful for llms, idk, that’s not what we’re talking about though.
I wasn’t talking about the paper, when I talked about the paper you ignored everything I said and moved in a different direction, which was what I responded to. If you’re wondering about the relevance, perhaps you shouldn’t have brought it up.