3 ms·
Not all transformers are _language_ models - the sequences of tokens don't have to be sequences of words.
by dfdydx 25d ago
Not all transformers are _language_ models - the sequences of tokens don't have to be sequences of words.
- perfmode 25d agoIn this case, what are the tokens?
- evilmathkid 25d ago9 color tokens + 4 special tokens (start, end, newline, inp_out_sep)
- shsshs 25d ago[flagged]
- Forgeties79 25d agoThis is incredibly pedantic if you ask me.
- deleted 25d ago[deleted]
- kgwgk 25d ago> The distinction is meaningless IMO. Not when discussing whether it's an LLM. The second L in LLM does have a meaning.
- shsshs 25d ago[flagged]
- kgwgk 25d agoYou're the first! Congratulations.
- fc417fc802 25d agoI'd argue that meaningful sequences of symbols constitute a language. This example doesn't use a human language but it does use a language IMO (at least AFAIU).
- dfdydx 24d agoAre number sequences a language?
- fc417fc802 24d agoAre rectangles squares? I can express a passage written in english as a sequence of numbers (ie tokens).
- mkehrt 25d agoSure, and those aren't LLMs?
- deleted 25d ago[deleted]
- Retric 25d agoWords and symbols alone don’t make a language. Zipper and and? and coin is pimple, Ocean! run bumper.
- shsshs 25d ago[flagged]
- fc417fc802 25d agoYour example is a meaningless sequence. So consider a different scenario where the sequence is meaningful but does not map to any human language. What exactly disqualifies it as a non-human language? When you encounter a human language that you can't personally read presumably you don't proceed to claim that it doesn't constitute language on the basis of your own lack of ability. To come at it from a slightly different angle - does compiled binary code count as a language? If not, why not? (I'll suggest that it's a language albeit not a natural one.)
- Retric 25d agoAny sequence could be meaningful or meaningless depending on the grammar involved. Open a word document in photoshop and the program has no idea what it’s dealing with. The reason the language term in LLM is meaningful is how the training, symbol mapping, etc is designed around human languages. The model doesn’t process raw text, instead there’s a critical processing step which allows the magic to happen.
- fc417fc802 25d agoIs the same processing step not happening here? To my mind the argument against this model qualifying as a language model is that while the sequence of tokens may technically qualify as a sort of language it doesn't appear to be generalized by any reasonable interpretation. Further, the model doesn't appear to be able to handle unstructured inputs and outputs in the "language" - everything seems to be highly structured. My line of reasoning could be approximately summarized as compiled binaries constituting a "real" (though not natural) language versus a sequential listing of chess positions that represent sequential game actions only being language "shaped". Still, it's interesting to consider that if scaled up I expect the "repeat yourself" experiment would likely apply to the internal representation of the model in the same manner.
- literalAardvark 25d agoLLMs also don't use words
- dfdydx 25d agoYes, but they're models of _language_ - words in, words out. The fact that they're embedded to vectors does not change this.
- m4nu3l 21d agoAlso, not all language models are transformers. You can have language models based on diffusion models or state-space models, or any other model that can be used to model sequences (so all of them, as sequences are just functions). Transformers are just the ones that are most common and successful today.