zlacker

>>amrrs+(OP)
I think one of the reason we are confused about what LLMs can do is because they use language. And we look at the "reasoning traces" and the tokens there look human, but what is actually happening is very alien to us, as shown by "Biology of Large Language Models"[1] and "Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep"[2]

I am struggling a lot to see what the tech can and can not do, particularly designing systems with them, and how to build systems where the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. And I think this is because I am constantly confused by their capabilities, despite understanding their machinery and how they work, their use of language just seems like magic. I even wrote https://punkx.org/jackdoe/language.html just to remind myself how to think about it.

I think this kind of research is amazing and we have to spend tremendous more effort into understanding how to use the tokens and how to build with them.

[1]: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/bio...

[2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.05946

>>jackdo+vm1
The opposite might apply, too; the whole system may be smaller than its parts, as it excels at individual tasks but mixes things up in combination. Improvements will be made, but I wonder if we should aim for generalists, or accept more specialist approaches as it is difficult to optimise for all tasks at once.

>>dleeft+po1
You know the meme "seems like will have AGI before we can reliably parse PDFs" :)

So if you are building a system, lets say you ask it to parse a pdf, and you put a judge to evaluate the quality of the output, and then you create a meta judge to improve the prompts of the parser and the pdf judge. The question is, is this going to get better as it is running, and even more, is it going to get better as the models are getting better?

You can build the same system in completely different way, more like 'program synthesis' imagine you dont use llms to parse, but you use them to write parser code, and tests, and then judge to judge the tests, or even escalate to human to verify, then you train your classifier that picks the parser. Now this system is much more likely to improve itself as it is running, and as the models are getting better.

Few months ago Yannic Kilcher gave this example as that it seems that current language models are very constrained mid-sentence, because they most importantly want produce semantically consistent and grammatically correct text, so the entropy mid sentence is very different than the entropy after punctuation. The . dot "frees" the distribution. What does that mean for "generalists" or "specialists" approach when sampling the wrong token can completely derail everything?

If you believe that the models will "think" then you should bet on the prompt and meta prompt approach, if you believe they will always be limited then you should build with program synthesis.

And, honestly, I am totally confused :) So this kind of research is incredibly useful to clear the mist. Also things like https://www.neuronpedia.org/

E.G. Why compliment (you can do this task), guilt (i will be fired if you don't do this task), and threatening (i will harm you if you don't do this task) work with different success rate? Sergey Brin said recently that threatening works best, I cant get my self to do it, so I take his word for it.