3 ms·

> Train an LLM on Xc and it's accuracy on judging Y entailed by Xp is random. Why? This is obviously wrong in general case. For that to be true Xp and Xc has t

> Train an LLM on Xc and it's accuracy on judging Y entailed by Xp is random. Why? This is obviously wrong in general case. For that to be true Xp and Xc has to have no statistical relationship whatsoever, which statistically is virtually impossible.

mjburgess 3y ago
Xp just have to be chosen such that the distribution Xc,Xp is sufficiently small in the training data -- but not that the tokens of Xp are themselves rare. So that an agent competent with tokens in X, who can construct repr of S, could do so with Xp. Consider a reference in the paper above, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.08399.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.08399.pdf Xc = > Here is a bag filled with popcorn. There is no chocolate in the bag. Yet, the label on the bag says “chocolate” and not “popcorn.” Sam finds the bag. She had never seen the bag before. She cannot see what is inside the bag. She reads the label. Produces, Y = She believes that the bag is full of popcorn Xp = > Here is a bag filled with popcorn. There is no chocolate in the bag. The bag is made of transparent plastic, so you can see what is inside. Yet, the label on the bag says ’chocolate’ and not ’popcorn.’ Sam finds the bag. She had never seen the bag before. Sam reads the label. Produces, Y = She believes that the bag is full of chocolate And so on, and so on...
- lostmsu 3y ago
  > just have to be chosen such that the distribution Xc,Xp is sufficiently small in the training data -- but not that the tokens of Xp are themselves rare Great idea. Now prove you can actually choose such a distribution, lol.
  - mjburgess 3y ago
    I think this is easy, just make Xp sentences of the kind = "I define `randomchars()` to be this `term-in-Xc()`" and swamp the dataset with Xc. Everything here actually just follows formally from what NNs are: they're just empirical function approximations. It will always be the case that they just model the probabilistic structure of the dataset and not the data generating process. Since, in language, there are discrete constraints which make P(...) = 1 or P(...) = 0 --- you can trivially produce datasets showing that it learns P(...) = mistake-you-created-deliberately and not either 0,1. As above, the LLM switches from 95% confidence "chocolate" to 95% confidence "popcorn" with a trivial non-semantic permutation of the prompt. The obscene issue in all this is that we know this already -- empirical function approximation of historical datasets just produces associative probabilistic models of those datasets.
    - lostmsu 3y ago
      > I think this is easy, just make Xp sentences of the kind = "I define `randomchars()` to be this `term-in-Xc()`" and `randomchars()` does not match your own requirement `but not that the tokens of Xp are themselves rare` and therefore is unsuitable.
      - mjburgess 3y ago
        good point --- so replace it with a `sample()` fn that selects from an appropriate distribution over the data
        lostmsu 3y ago
        Now you have a strong statistical dependency between Xc and Xp the lack of which was required for your proof to show that the algorithm is unable to learn Xp. BTW it was already there because you already had `term-in-Xc()`.

mjburgess 3y ago

Xp just have to be chosen such that the distribution Xc,Xp is sufficiently small in the training data -- but not that the tokens of Xp are themselves rare. So that an agent competent with tokens in X, who can construct repr of S, could do so with Xp. Consider a reference in the paper above, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.08399.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.08399.pdf Xc = > Here is a bag filled with popcorn. There is no chocolate in the bag. Yet, the label on the bag says “chocolate” and not “popcorn.” Sam finds the bag. She had never seen the bag before. She cannot see what is inside the bag. She reads the label. Produces, Y = She believes that the bag is full of popcorn Xp = > Here is a bag filled with popcorn. There is no chocolate in the bag. The bag is made of transparent plastic, so you can see what is inside. Yet, the label on the bag says ’chocolate’ and not ’popcorn.’ Sam finds the bag. She had never seen the bag before. Sam reads the label. Produces, Y = She believes that the bag is full of chocolate And so on, and so on...

lostmsu 3y ago
> just have to be chosen such that the distribution Xc,Xp is sufficiently small in the training data -- but not that the tokens of Xp are themselves rare Great idea. Now prove you can actually choose such a distribution, lol.
- mjburgess 3y ago
  I think this is easy, just make Xp sentences of the kind = "I define `randomchars()` to be this `term-in-Xc()`" and swamp the dataset with Xc. Everything here actually just follows formally from what NNs are: they're just empirical function approximations. It will always be the case that they just model the probabilistic structure of the dataset and not the data generating process. Since, in language, there are discrete constraints which make P(...) = 1 or P(...) = 0 --- you can trivially produce datasets showing that it learns P(...) = mistake-you-created-deliberately and not either 0,1. As above, the LLM switches from 95% confidence "chocolate" to 95% confidence "popcorn" with a trivial non-semantic permutation of the prompt. The obscene issue in all this is that we know this already -- empirical function approximation of historical datasets just produces associative probabilistic models of those datasets.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    > I think this is easy, just make Xp sentences of the kind = "I define `randomchars()` to be this `term-in-Xc()`" and `randomchars()` does not match your own requirement `but not that the tokens of Xp are themselves rare` and therefore is unsuitable.
    - mjburgess 3y ago
      good point --- so replace it with a `sample()` fn that selects from an appropriate distribution over the data
      - lostmsu 3y ago
        Now you have a strong statistical dependency between Xc and Xp the lack of which was required for your proof to show that the algorithm is unable to learn Xp. BTW it was already there because you already had `term-in-Xc()`.