this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
133 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59963 readers
4060 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I often see a lot of people with outdated understanding of modern LLMs.

This is probably the best interpretability research to date, by the leading interpretability research team.

It's worth a read if you want a peek behind the curtain on modern models.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Womble@lemmy.world 27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (13 children)

This is a really good science communication article, it describes their work in clear terms (finding structures that relate to abstract concepts, seeing when they are activated and how strengthening and weaking them modifies outputs) and goes into the implications for it. I'm probably going to save this link as a rebuttal for the people who claim LLMs just predict the next word and have no concepts embedded in them.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 8 points 7 months ago (11 children)

I doubt that anyone saying that LLM are calculating next word solely based on previous sequence. It's still statistics, regardless of complexity.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Saying that it's "statistics" is, at best, unhelpful. It conveys no useful information. At worst, it's misleading. What goes on with neural nets has very little to do with what one learns in a stats course.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's about as useful as saying that all of science is "just statistics". Which like, in a literal way, it's true. But science is still what forms the foundation of our entire civilization and base of knowledge.

Knowing that a blood pressure drug works is "just statistics", but you still take it if your blood pressure is high.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Yes, that's a valid comparison. It's worse with neural nets, though. Much of machine learning is literally applied statistics. That is, a program is written that applies statistical methods to data and then adjusts its behavior. So, saying that it's statistics has the potential to really send people down the wrong track. Many of the "human hallucinations" about AIs result from confusion about this.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)