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.

  • HMD is ‘scaling back’ in the US, killing Nokia all over again

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    104 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    68 Aufrufe
    realitista@lemmy.worldR
    They've also been reborn as a health devices manufacturer, Withings.
  • How to "Reformat" a Hardrive the American way

    Technology technology
    25
    2
    90 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    133 Aufrufe
    T
    It really, really is. Like that scene from Office Space.
  • Lighter, Stronger, Smarter: The Rise of Syntactic Foams

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 15 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 781 Stimmen
    144 Beiträge
    506 Aufrufe
    D
    They can be LED I just want the aesthetic.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    182 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    252 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 5 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    B
    Oh sorry, my mind must have been a bit foggy when I read that. We agree 100%