Skip to content

I'm looking for an article showing that LLMs don't know how they work internally

Technology
80 32 367
  • It's true that LLMs aren't "aware" of what internal steps they are taking, so asking an LLM how they reasoned out an answer will just output text that statistically sounds right based on its training set, but to say something like "they can never reason" is provably false.

    Its obvious that you have a bias and desperately want reality to confirm it, but there's been significant research and progress in tracing internals of LLMs, that show logic, planning, and reasoning.

    EDIT: lol you can downvote me but it doesn't change evidence based research

    It’d be impressive if the environmental toll making the matrices and using them wasn’t critically bad.

    Developing a AAA video game has a higher carbon footprint than training an LLM, and running inference uses significantly less power than playing that same video game.

    Too deep on the AI propaganda there, it’s completing the next word. You can give the LLM base umpteen layers to make complicated connections, still ain’t thinking.

    The LLM corpos trying to get nuclear plants to power their gigantic data centers while AAA devs aren’t trying to buy nuclear plants says that’s a straw man and you simultaneously also are wrong.

    Using a pre-trained and memory-crushed LLM that can run on a small device won’t take up too much power. But that’s not what you’re thinking of. You’re thinking of the LLM only accessible via ChatGPT’s api that has a yuge context length and massive matrices that needs hilariously large amounts of RAM and compute power to execute. And it’s still a facsimile of thought.

    It’s okay they suck and have very niche actual use cases - maybe it’ll get us to something better. But they ain’t gold, they ain't smart, and they ain’t worth destroying the planet.

  • Too deep on the AI propaganda there, it’s completing the next word. You can give the LLM base umpteen layers to make complicated connections, still ain’t thinking.

    The LLM corpos trying to get nuclear plants to power their gigantic data centers while AAA devs aren’t trying to buy nuclear plants says that’s a straw man and you simultaneously also are wrong.

    Using a pre-trained and memory-crushed LLM that can run on a small device won’t take up too much power. But that’s not what you’re thinking of. You’re thinking of the LLM only accessible via ChatGPT’s api that has a yuge context length and massive matrices that needs hilariously large amounts of RAM and compute power to execute. And it’s still a facsimile of thought.

    It’s okay they suck and have very niche actual use cases - maybe it’ll get us to something better. But they ain’t gold, they ain't smart, and they ain’t worth destroying the planet.

    it's completing the next word.

    Facts disagree, but you've decided to live in a reality that matches your biases despite real evidence, so whatever 👍

  • Can’t help but here’s a rant on people asking LLMs to “explain their reasoning” which is impossible because they can never reason (not meant to be attacking OP, just attacking the “LLMs think and reason” people and companies that spout it):

    LLMs are just matrix math to complete the most likely next word. They don’t know anything and can’t reason.

    Anything you read or hear about LLMs or “AI” getting “asked questions” or “explain its reasoning” or talking about how they’re “thinking” is just AI propaganda to make you think they’re doing something LLMs literally can’t do but people sure wish they could.

    In this case it sounds like people who don’t understand how LLMs work eating that propaganda up and approaching LLMs like there’s something to talk to or discern from.

    If you waste egregiously high amounts of gigawatts to put everything that’s ever been typed into matrices you can operate on, you get a facsimile of the human knowledge that went into typing all of that stuff.

    It’d be impressive if the environmental toll making the matrices and using them wasn’t critically bad.

    TLDR; LLMs can never think or reason, anyone talking about them thinking or reasoning is bullshitting, they utilize almost everything that’s ever been typed to give (occasionally) reasonably useful outputs that are the most basic bitch shit because that’s the most likely next word at the cost of environmental disaster

    How would you prove that someone or something is capable of reasoning or thinking?

  • Can’t help but here’s a rant on people asking LLMs to “explain their reasoning” which is impossible because they can never reason (not meant to be attacking OP, just attacking the “LLMs think and reason” people and companies that spout it):

    LLMs are just matrix math to complete the most likely next word. They don’t know anything and can’t reason.

    Anything you read or hear about LLMs or “AI” getting “asked questions” or “explain its reasoning” or talking about how they’re “thinking” is just AI propaganda to make you think they’re doing something LLMs literally can’t do but people sure wish they could.

    In this case it sounds like people who don’t understand how LLMs work eating that propaganda up and approaching LLMs like there’s something to talk to or discern from.

    If you waste egregiously high amounts of gigawatts to put everything that’s ever been typed into matrices you can operate on, you get a facsimile of the human knowledge that went into typing all of that stuff.

    It’d be impressive if the environmental toll making the matrices and using them wasn’t critically bad.

    TLDR; LLMs can never think or reason, anyone talking about them thinking or reasoning is bullshitting, they utilize almost everything that’s ever been typed to give (occasionally) reasonably useful outputs that are the most basic bitch shit because that’s the most likely next word at the cost of environmental disaster

    Who has claimed that LLMs have the capacity to reason?

  • Who has claimed that LLMs have the capacity to reason?

    The study being referenced explains in detail why they can’t. So I’d say it’s Anthropic who stated LLMs don’t have the capacity to reason, and that’s what we’re discussing.

    The popular media tends to go on and on about conflating AI with AGI and synthetic reasoning.

  • People don't understand what "model" means. That's the unfortunate reality.

    They walk down runways and pose for magazines. Do they reason? Sometimes.

  • It's true that LLMs aren't "aware" of what internal steps they are taking, so asking an LLM how they reasoned out an answer will just output text that statistically sounds right based on its training set, but to say something like "they can never reason" is provably false.

    Its obvious that you have a bias and desperately want reality to confirm it, but there's been significant research and progress in tracing internals of LLMs, that show logic, planning, and reasoning.

    EDIT: lol you can downvote me but it doesn't change evidence based research

    It’d be impressive if the environmental toll making the matrices and using them wasn’t critically bad.

    Developing a AAA video game has a higher carbon footprint than training an LLM, and running inference uses significantly less power than playing that same video game.

    but there's been significant research and progress in tracing internals of LLMs, that show logic, planning, and reasoning.

    would there be a source for such research?

  • I found the aeticle in a post on the fediverse, and I can't find it anymore.

    The reaserchers asked a simple mathematical question to an LLM ( like 7+4) and then could see how internally it worked by finding similar paths, but nothing like performing mathematical reasoning, even if the final answer was correct.

    Then they asked the LLM to explain how it found the result, what was it's internal reasoning. The answer was detailed step by step mathematical logic, like a human explaining how to perform an addition.

    This showed 2 things:

    • LLM don't "know" how they work

    • the second answer was a rephrasing of original text used for training that explain how math works, so LLM just used that as an explanation

    I think it was a very interesting an meaningful analysis

    Can anyone help me find this?

    EDIT: thanks to @theunknownmuncher
    @lemmy.world
    https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language-model its this one

    EDIT2: I'm aware LLM dont "know" anything and don't reason, and it's exactly why I wanted to find the article. Some more details here: https://feddit.it/post/18191686/13815095

    I don't know how I work. I couldn't tell you much about neuroscience beyond "neurons are linked together and somehow that creates thoughts". And even when it comes to complex thoughts, I sometimes can't explain why. At my job, I often lean on intuition I've developed over a decade. I can look at a system and get an immediate sense if it's going to work well, but actually explaining why or why not takes a lot more time and energy. Am I an LLM?

  • Who has claimed that LLMs have the capacity to reason?

    More than enough people who claim to know how it works think it might be "evolving" into a sentient being inside it's little black box. Example from a conversation I gave up on...
    https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18759960

  • I found the aeticle in a post on the fediverse, and I can't find it anymore.

    The reaserchers asked a simple mathematical question to an LLM ( like 7+4) and then could see how internally it worked by finding similar paths, but nothing like performing mathematical reasoning, even if the final answer was correct.

    Then they asked the LLM to explain how it found the result, what was it's internal reasoning. The answer was detailed step by step mathematical logic, like a human explaining how to perform an addition.

    This showed 2 things:

    • LLM don't "know" how they work

    • the second answer was a rephrasing of original text used for training that explain how math works, so LLM just used that as an explanation

    I think it was a very interesting an meaningful analysis

    Can anyone help me find this?

    EDIT: thanks to @theunknownmuncher
    @lemmy.world
    https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language-model its this one

    EDIT2: I'm aware LLM dont "know" anything and don't reason, and it's exactly why I wanted to find the article. Some more details here: https://feddit.it/post/18191686/13815095

    "Researchers" did a thing I did the first day I was actually able to ChatGPT and came to a conclusion that is in the disclaimers on the ChatGPT website. Can I get paid to do this kind of "research?" If you've even read a cursory article about how LLMs work you'd know that asking them what their reasoning is for anything doesn't work because the answer would just always be an explanation of how LLMs work generally.

  • How would you prove that someone or something is capable of reasoning or thinking?

    You can prove it’s not by doing some matrix multiplication and seeing its matrix multiplication. Much easier way to go about it

  • it's completing the next word.

    Facts disagree, but you've decided to live in a reality that matches your biases despite real evidence, so whatever 👍

    It’s literally tokens. Doesn’t matter if it completes the next word or next phrase, still completing the next most likely token 😎😎 can’t think can’t reason can witch’s brew facsimile of something done before

  • but there's been significant research and progress in tracing internals of LLMs, that show logic, planning, and reasoning.

    would there be a source for such research?

    https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language-model for one, the exact article OP was asking for

  • but this article espouses that llms do the opposite of logic, planning, and reasoning?

    quoting:

    Claude, on occasion, will give a plausible-sounding argument designed to agree with the user rather than to follow logical steps. We show this by asking it for help on a hard math problem while giving it an incorrect hint. We are able to “catch it in the act” as it makes up its fake reasoning,

    are there any sources which show that llms use logic, conduct planning, and reason (as was asserted in the 2nd level comment)?

  • They walk down runways and pose for magazines. Do they reason? Sometimes.

    But why male models?

  • but this article espouses that llms do the opposite of logic, planning, and reasoning?

    quoting:

    Claude, on occasion, will give a plausible-sounding argument designed to agree with the user rather than to follow logical steps. We show this by asking it for help on a hard math problem while giving it an incorrect hint. We are able to “catch it in the act” as it makes up its fake reasoning,

    are there any sources which show that llms use logic, conduct planning, and reason (as was asserted in the 2nd level comment)?

    No, you're misunderstanding the findings. It does show that LLMs do not explain their reasoning when asked, which makes sense and is expected. They do not have access to their inner-workings and generate a response that "sounds" right, but tracing their internal logic shows they operate differently than what they claim, when asked. You can't ask an LLM to explain its own reasoning. But the article shows how they've made progress with tracing under-the-hood, and the surprising results they found about how it is able to do things like plan ahead, which defeats the misconception that it is just "autocomplete"

  • People don't understand what "model" means. That's the unfortunate reality.

    Yeah. That's because peoples unfortunate reality is a "model".

  • More than enough people who claim to know how it works think it might be "evolving" into a sentient being inside it's little black box. Example from a conversation I gave up on...
    https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18759960

    I don't want to brigade, so I'll put my thoughts here. The linked comment is making the same mistake about self preservation that people make when they ask an LLM to "show it's work" or explain it's reasoning. The text response of an LLM cannot be taken at it's word or used to confirm that kind of theory. It requires tracing the logic under the hood.

    Just like how it's not actually an AI assistant, but trained and prompted to output text that is expected to be what an AI assistant would respond with, if it is expected that it would pursue self preservation, then it will output text that matches that. It's output is always "fake"

    That doesn't mean there isn't a real potential element of self preservation, though, but you'd need to dig and trace through the network to show it, not use the text output.

  • The study being referenced explains in detail why they can’t. So I’d say it’s Anthropic who stated LLMs don’t have the capacity to reason, and that’s what we’re discussing.

    The popular media tends to go on and on about conflating AI with AGI and synthetic reasoning.

    You're confusing the confirmation that the LLM cannot explain it's under-the-hood reasoning as text output, with a confirmation of not being able to reason at all. Anthropic is not claiming that it cannot reason. They actually find that it performs complex logic and behavior like planning ahead.

  • I don't know how I work. I couldn't tell you much about neuroscience beyond "neurons are linked together and somehow that creates thoughts". And even when it comes to complex thoughts, I sometimes can't explain why. At my job, I often lean on intuition I've developed over a decade. I can look at a system and get an immediate sense if it's going to work well, but actually explaining why or why not takes a lot more time and energy. Am I an LLM?

    I agree. This is the exact problem I think people need to face with nural network AIs. They work the exact same way we do. Even if we analysed the human brain it would look like wires connected to wires with different resistances all over the place with some other chemical influences.

    I think everyone forgets that nural networks were used in AI to replicate how animal brains work, and clearly if it worked for us to get smart then it should work for something synthetic. Well we've certainly answered that now.

    Everyone being like "oh it's just a predictive model and it's all math and math can't be intelligent" are questioning exactly how their own brains work. We are just prediction machines, the brain releases dopamine when it correctly predicts things, it self learns from correctly assuming how things work. We modelled AI off of ourselves. And if we don't understand how we work, of course we're not gonna understand how it works.

  • 122 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    M
    They don't have fiddle heads
  • 337 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    111 Aufrufe
    R
    What I'm speaking about is that it should be impossible to do some things. If it's possible, they will be done, and there's nothing you can do about it. To solve the problem of twiddled social media (and moderation used to assert dominance) we need a decentralized system of 90s Web reimagined, and Fediverse doesn't deliver it - if Facebook and Reddit are feudal states, then Fediverse is a confederation of smaller feudal entities. A post, a person, a community, a reaction and a change (by moderator or by the user) should be global entities (with global identifiers, so that the object by id of #0000001a2b3c4d6e7f890 would be the same object today or 10 years later on every server storing it) replicated over a network of servers similarly to Usenet (and to an IRC network, but in an IRC network servers are trusted, so it's not a good example for a global system). Really bad posts (or those by persons with history of posting such) should be banned on server level by everyone. The rest should be moderated by moderator reactions\changes of certain type. Ideally, for pooling of resources and resilience, servers would be separated by types into storage nodes (I think the name says it, FTP servers can do the job, but no need to be limited by it), index nodes (scraping many storage nodes, giving out results in structured format fit for any user representation, say, as a sequence of posts in one community, or like a list of communities found by tag, or ... , and possibly being connected into one DHT for Kademlia-like search, since no single index node will have everything), and (like in torrents?) tracker nodes for these and for identities, I think torrent-like announce-retrieve service is enough - to return a list of storage nodes storing, say, a specified partition (subspace of identifiers of objects, to make looking for something at least possibly efficient), or return a list of index nodes, or return a bunch of certificates and keys for an identity (should be somehow cryptographically connected to the global identifier of a person). So when a storage node comes online, it announces itself to a bunch of such trackers, similarly with index nodes, similarly with a user. One can also have a NOSTR-like service for real-time notifications by users. This way you'd have a global untrusted pooled infrastructure, allowing to replace many platforms. With common data, identities, services. Objects in storage and index services can be, say, in a format including a set of tags and then the body. So a specific application needing to show only data related to it would just search on index services and display only objects with tags of, say, "holo_ns:talk.bullshit.starwars" and "holo_t:post", like a sequence of posts with ability to comment, or maybe it would search objects with tags "holo_name:My 1999-like Star Wars holopage" and "holo_t:page" and display the links like search results in Google, and then clicking on that you'd see something presented like a webpage, except links would lead to global identifiers (or tag expressions interpreted by the particular application, who knows). (An index service may return, say, an array of objects, each with identifier, tags, list of locations on storage nodes where it's found or even bittorrent magnet links, and a free description possibly ; then the user application can unify responses of a few such services to avoid repetitions, maybe sort them, represent them as needed, so on.) The user applications for that common infrastructure can be different at the same time. Some like Facebook, some like ICQ, some like a web browser, some like a newsreader. (Star Wars is not a random reference, my whole habit of imagining tech stuff is from trying to imagine a science fiction world of the future, so yeah, this may seem like passive dreaming and it is.)
  • 624 Stimmen
    73 Beiträge
    234 Aufrufe
    swelter_spark@reddthat.comS
    Swappa is good for tech.
  • 79 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    D
    Right? The surprise would be if they weren't doing that.
  • 106 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    124 Aufrufe
    tryenjer@lemmy.worldT
    In short, we will need an open-source alternative to these implants, of course.
  • Tech Company Recruiters Sidestep Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    43 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    G
    "Hey ChatGPT, pretend to be an immigration attorney named Soo Park and answer these questions as if you're a criminal dipshit."
  • 30 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    41 Aufrufe
    S
    The thing about compelling lies is not that they are new, just that they are easier to expand. The most common effect of compelling lies is their ability to get well-intentioned people to support malign causes and give their money to fraudsters. So, expect that to expand, kind of like it already has been. The big question for me is what the response will be. Will we make lying illegal? Will we become a world of ever more paranoid isolationists, returning to clans, families, households, as the largest social group you can trust? Will most people even have the intelligence to see what is happenning and respond? Or will most people be turned into info-puppets, controlled into behaviours by manipulation of their information diet to an unprecedented degree? I don't know.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet