3 ms·
1. this is interesting. tokens are arbitrary identifiers... of text. It's called a 'text encoder' for a reason 2. it's a strong assertion but it is true. it's
by justinl33 3y ago
1. this is interesting. tokens are arbitrary identifiers... of text. It's called a 'text encoder' for a reason
2. it's a strong assertion but it is true. it's kind of inherent in the name; next word prediction. Why would you want a calculator to be making predictions? I agree that it's worth understanding whether it's possible, but your original point was that 'arithmetic will become suddenly reliable' - this is what I am disagreeing with.
3. this links to the above point - you are right: LLM's can already perform arithmetic, this could be easily proved by loading up gpt-2. but again, your original point was that LLM's will 'figure out' arithmetic - I don't believe they will. The loss function does not incentivize being good at arithmetic, it incentivizes making good predictions that are close to the true value. The loss function will not penalize an LLM who predict 'good' is the next word when it should have been 'great'. while it might penalize '2+2=3; since this sequence would be strongly represented in the training set, it's not going to penalize the model getting '1234*5678' one digit off - which is the problem.
- eurekin 3y agoAbout 3., isn't that done specifically in order to not overfit?
- cjbprime 3y agoLLMs are compression functions. An LLM that internalizes the rules of arithmetic will compress better than one that doesn't. That improvement will be measurable in the loss function, as it correctly predicts more of its training data that depends on arithmetic answers to predict the next word. > Why would you want a calculator to be making predictions? If the predictions are correct, why wouldn't I? You are objecting to the entire concept of LLMs at this point, there's nothing specific to arithmetic here.