I often see a lot of people with outdated understanding of modern LLMs.

This is probably the best interpretability research to date, by the leading interpretability research team.

It’s worth a read if you want a peek behind the curtain on modern models.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I would not expect almost human-like conversation on being told that is just statistics. I’d expect something like the old Markov chain jobs. What kind of knowledge leads you to have higher expectations?

    Also, how does Bayesian statistics enter into this?

    • misk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      ELIZA from 1966 was enough to convince people that computer program they were talking to was human. People are now being sold on getting answers to their questions via natural language prompts and those answers are pretty much plausibly sounding sentences that happen to be right sometimes due to probability calculations.

      Bayesian statistics is very different from what’s being taught up until high school (at least here) and is foundational to earlier machine learning applications like spam filters. It’s hard to imagine understanding what LLMs do without basics.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Those aren’t the basics, though. That’s how saying it’s statistics is misleading. A Bayesian network is not a neural network.