> due to fundamental limitations
People keep throwing this phrase around in relation to LLMs, when not a single “fundamental limitation” has been rigorously demonstrated to exist, and many tasks that were claimed to be impossible for LLMs two years ago supposedly due to “fundamental limitations” (e.g. character counting or phonetics) are non-issues for them today even without tools.
> character counting
The models now whaste a vast amount of useless neurons memorising the character count the entire English language so that people can ask how many r's are in strawberry and check a tickbox in a benchmark.
The architecture cannot efficiently or consistently represent counting letters in words. We should never have forced trained them to do it.
This goes for other more important "skills" that are unsuited to tranformer models.
Most models can now do decent arithmetics. But if you knew how it has encoded that ability in its neurons then you would never ever ever ever trust any arithmetic it ever outputs, even in seems to "know" it (unless it called a calculator MCP to achieve it).
There are fundamental limitations, but we're currently brute forcing ourselves through problems we could trivially solve with a different tool.
> The models now whaste a vast amount of useless neurons memorising the character count the entire English language
No they don’t. They only need to know the character count for each token, and with typical vocabularies having around 250k entries, that’s an insignificant number for all but the tiniest LLMs.
Character counting remains a huge issue without tools.
Are you using only frontier models that are gated behind openai/anthropic/google APIs? Those use tools to help them out behind the scenes. It remains no less impressive, but I think we should be clear.
>People keep throwing this phrase around in relation to LLMs, when not a single “fundamental limitation” has been rigorously demonstrated to exist
Some limitations are not rigorously demonstrated to be fundamental, but continuously present from the first early LLMs yes. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who say it can be done?
And some limitations are fundamental, and have been rigorously demonstrated, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817?utm_source=chatgpt.com
That paper’s abstract doesn’t carry its title, to put it mildly.
What part of "Specifically, we define a formal world where hallucination is defined as inconsistencies between a computable LLM and a computable ground truth function. By employing results from learning theory, we show that LLMs cannot learn all the computable functions and will therefore inevitably hallucinate if used as general problem solvers. " doesn't carry the title, to ask mildly?
I don’t agree with that definition of “hallucination”, for starters.
[dead]
The literal best public models still fail to count characters consistently in practice so I’m not sure what you mean. It’s literally a problem we’re still trying to solve at work
What's amazing is that they even can fairly reliably appear to count characters. I mean we're talking about systems that infer sequences not character counters or calculators. They are amazing in unrelated ways and we need to accept this so we can use them effectively.
I suspect character counting - counting small numbers in general in fact - is something that multimodal models will gradually learn through their visual capabilities. We have generative systems that are capable of generating an image of the word ‘strawberry’, and of counting how many strawberries are visible in an image; seems likely it’s possible for an LLM to ‘imagine’ what the word strawberry looks like and count the ‘Rs’ it can ‘see’.
Of course, they’re shockingly powerful, just in an incredibly “spiky” way
Is character counting actually not an issue anymore? Do you know somewhere where I can read more about this?
Character counting errors are a side effect of tokenization, which is a performance optimization. If we scaled the hardware big enough we could train on raw bytes and avoid it.
No, tokenization is not the only reason. A next-word predictor has fundamentally a hard time executing algorithms, even as simple as counting.
Your comment, after removing the particulars, has a shape of:
People have an <opinion> which hasn't been rigorously proven, while <not rigorously proven counteropinion>.
As such, I am not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
Drawing five fingered humans was a fundamental limitation... until it's not.
This is kind of my point, we need to get better at describing the limitations and study them. It seems extremely clear that there are limitations, and not just temporary ones, but structural limitations that existed at the beginning and continue to persist.
Yeah I think it was the word "fundamental" he took issue with.
If you remove the auxiliary tools and just leave the core LLM then strawberry still has an undefined number of `r`s in it.
That’s false. Larger LLMs learn token decompositions through their training, and in fact modern training pipelines are designed to occasionally produce uncommon tokenizations (including splitting words into individual characters) for this reason. Frontier models have no trouble spelling words even without tools. Even many mid-sized models can do that.
Wait, where can I learn more about this? I don't doubt that varying the tokenization during training improves results, but how does/would that enable token introspection?
Because LLMs can learn that different token sequences represent the same character sequence from training context. Just like they learn much more complex patterns from context.
You can try this out locally with any mid-sized current-gen LLM. You’ll find that it can spell out most atomic tokens from its input just fine. It simply learned to do so.
of course, if you choose to ignore all the limitations they indeed have no limitations.
Nobody says they have no limitations. The question is are those limitation fundamental, i.e. can we expect improvement, say within a year.
When I talk about fundamental limitations, I mean limitations that can't be solved, even if they could be improved.
We have improved hallucinations significantly, and yet it seems clear that they are inherent to the technology and so will always exist to some extent.
“Seems clear” based on what?
For one, based on continuously frustrated hopes (and promises!) that hallucinations will go away.
As a general architecture, an LLM also has limitations that can't be improved unless we switch to another, fundamentally different AI design that's non LLM based.
There are also limitations due to maths and/or physics that aren't fixable under any design. Outside science fiction, there is no technology whose limitations are all fixable.
Here's one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Am I misreading that paper? They define hallucinations as anything other than the correct answer and prove that there are infinitely many questions an LLM can't answer correctly, but that's true of any architecture- there are infinitely many problems a team of geniuses with supercomputers can't answer. If an LLM can be made to reliably say "I don't know" when it doesn't, hallucinations are solved- they contend that this doesn't matter because you can keep drawing from your pile of infinite unanswerable questions and the LLM will either never answer or will make something up. Seems like a technically true result that isn't usefully true.