▲ 287 ▼ Maybe I'll just switch back to hotbot (lemmy.world) submitted 2 months ago by daikiki@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world 69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (3 children) What causes this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) LLMs break words up into chunks of letters which commonly appear - suffixes like "-tion" and "-ism" are obvious examples. They then predict which chunk comes next based on the ones before, or whether the word will end. This is very useful for generating sensible-looking text while at the same time correlating concepts associated with different words. However, it also means that the dont really "see" the letters that make up each word, just the chunks of letters, which are stored as mathematical vectors. This is why they struggle so much with analysing the makeup of words. However, with numbers they generally store each digit individually, so they shouldnt have as much of a problem saying how many 5's are in 1,589,005, for example. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Terminarchs@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 months ago Simply put, LLMs are great at forming sentences but can't do math. Like, any math. If they get 60+21=81 right, it's only going to be because it's textually written somewhere in the training data that 60+21=81. However, it's very unlikely for counting the number of Ts in colonialism to be in there, so it just hallucinates what it thinks is a correct response. permalink fedilink source parent [–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Two very different answers to this question... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Short youtube video explaining why tokenisation causes this bug. It's an older video, so it talks about tokens as being whole-word rather than chunks of words, which is how most modern models work. https://youtube.com/shorts/7pQrMAekdn4 The other persons explanation doesn't acknowledge that emergent reasoning does kind-of exist in LLMs. That's why theyre able to say how many 5's are in a large number, despite never seeing that problem before. They dont 'just' repeat things they've been trained on, though they often do. Of course, if that problem did exist significantly in the training data, it would be more likely to get it right. But you could say the same about any number of things an LLM doesn't know. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) LLMs break words up into chunks of letters which commonly appear - suffixes like "-tion" and "-ism" are obvious examples. They then predict which chunk comes next based on the ones before, or whether the word will end. This is very useful for generating sensible-looking text while at the same time correlating concepts associated with different words. However, it also means that the dont really "see" the letters that make up each word, just the chunks of letters, which are stored as mathematical vectors. This is why they struggle so much with analysing the makeup of words. However, with numbers they generally store each digit individually, so they shouldnt have as much of a problem saying how many 5's are in 1,589,005, for example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Terminarchs@slrpnk.net 1 point 2 months ago Simply put, LLMs are great at forming sentences but can't do math. Like, any math. If they get 60+21=81 right, it's only going to be because it's textually written somewhere in the training data that 60+21=81. However, it's very unlikely for counting the number of Ts in colonialism to be in there, so it just hallucinates what it thinks is a correct response. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] humanamerican@lemmy.zip 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Two very different answers to this question... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Short youtube video explaining why tokenisation causes this bug. It's an older video, so it talks about tokens as being whole-word rather than chunks of words, which is how most modern models work. https://youtube.com/shorts/7pQrMAekdn4 The other persons explanation doesn't acknowledge that emergent reasoning does kind-of exist in LLMs. That's why theyre able to say how many 5's are in a large number, despite never seeing that problem before. They dont 'just' repeat things they've been trained on, though they often do. Of course, if that problem did exist significantly in the training data, it would be more likely to get it right. But you could say the same about any number of things an LLM doesn't know. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) Short youtube video explaining why tokenisation causes this bug. It's an older video, so it talks about tokens as being whole-word rather than chunks of words, which is how most modern models work. https://youtube.com/shorts/7pQrMAekdn4 The other persons explanation doesn't acknowledge that emergent reasoning does kind-of exist in LLMs. That's why theyre able to say how many 5's are in a large number, despite never seeing that problem before. They dont 'just' repeat things they've been trained on, though they often do. Of course, if that problem did exist significantly in the training data, it would be more likely to get it right. But you could say the same about any number of things an LLM doesn't know. permalink fedilink source parent