“Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs(gmcgoldr.github.io) |
“Next-token predictor” is the wrong mental model for LLMs(gmcgoldr.github.io) |
Sounds like the next 1000 years depend on how carefully we define "winning".
So what does this lead to? To a generic intelligence which is capable of responding/answering everything.
If overfitted, the model just remembers every possibility in the world but this is not possible anyway so it will start to identify patterns and rules and will use them instead.
Basically 'compressing' every possibility to every question someone could ask -> compression leads to intelligence.
During training, real life text is fed through the LLM, and rhe "correct" token is the one actually observed in the training text. Here's a recent video walkthrough in some detail, mostly aimed at providing a deeper understanding than "next token predictor function":
https://youtu.be/GlYgs6v2YfU?is=IxVMhoCCE4N4WRVK
(Start at 15:30 for the LLM specific parts)
It can't. The next token is just the most statistically probably given the context (at least in transformers). Try a very small/weak model in your own machine and more often than not it would get stuck repeating the same word or even just output garbage. Because after training and quantization (where some information is lost), that's the most probable next token. Large models can be tricked to fall in the same behavior with very very specific inputs. Still happen, even in frontier models. And they can't detect if the output is wrong.
That's why the premise in TFA is wrong, because a transformer is a next-token predictor. It literally is that. There's nothing secret or magical, it's just a very mechanical process, with a lot of matrix multiplication, normalization, a few random passes, mappings between embeddings and a dictionary of tokens, in a very very high scale.
If someone has found something that's not a mechanical, algorithmic computation and llms are doing something nobody can explain and can't even be modeled in math, I'm happy to be educated.
For example, say I ask an LLM, "What sentence in English contains every letter in the alphabet?"
It would respond with something like:
"The quick fox jumps over the lazy, brown [next word]"
(Assume all the words were previously guessed correctly at this point)
The LLM guesses the last word based on what it has been trained on. Let's pretend the matrix is small, and the options narrow down to something like:
1. Dog (99.9% confidence) 2. Cow (85% confidence) 3. Bag (75% confidence) 4. Crayon (25% confidence)
The machine can confidently determine the final word of the sentence, "The quick fox jumps over the lazy, brown dog" because that sentence is unique because it is often used for testing things like fonts, a fun piece of trivia, and so on.
Brown Cow is not a bad guess because it's a type of cow and a yogurt brand. Brown bags and brown crayons are also perfectly rational adjectives to describe those common items and are not a bad guess either.
However, in the context of that sentence, dog is the most correct answer because one is unlikely to have written "The quick fox jumps over the lazy, brown crayon," thus it is quite improbable to be the answer.
My understand is this is where hallucinations can often come from. If the trivia about the sentence happened to not be in common in the data set, then "brown cow" might not be a terrible guess. There is clearly something rational behind that answer, but it's not correct in the sense that it answers the question correctly nor followed the instruction properly.
I'm sure the LLMs we have are far more capable these days. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if an LLM could check its answer by counting the distinct letters in each word to verify. Not sure though.
Again, this is just a poor example based on my understanding, but I hope it helps (and is more correct than not).
Edit: Pretend word = token. It's technically tokens and not entire words, but I didn't not want to get into tokenization of words.
https://www.oranlooney.com/post/rose-petals/#language-models
It’s popular to dismiss LLMs as “just next token predictors.” This is technically true, but also kind of misses the point. Markov chains, RNNs, and transformers are all language models that can be described as “next token predictors,” but they don’t all work equally well. A better question to ask is: “What is this model’s inductive bias?”
A Markov chain (an -gram model) assumes the next word depends on the previous words, and that each possible combination of words has a completely independent parameter. (Andrey Markov proposed using this language model over a century ago, making it the granddaddy of modern LLMs.) So, for a vocabulary of size , there are parameters to learn. For even a smallish like 5, that already explodes the hypothesis space beyond what can be learned from even a huge text corpus like the entire internet. And, simultaneously, having a context window of only the previous 5 words is grossly inadequate for modeling real-world language. Like our FCNN above, this model suffers from having an inductive bias which is too weak.
RNNs tried to fix this problem by compressing the entire history into a single fixed-size state vector, updated one token at a time. But that compression is itself a brutal assumption: everything worth remembering about the past must survive being squeezed through a tiny bottleneck at every step. In practice, RNN models quickly lose the plot after a handful of sentences. Locally, the text they generate looks grammatically correct and meaningful, but zoom out a little and they’re basically nonsense generators. Like our naïve linear model, this model suffers from having an inductive bias which is too strong.
Transformers manage to hit a sweet spot: by keeping the recent history around as a working memory, and attending to different parts of it at different times, the transformer’s bias matches real structure in language: the referent of a pronoun, the subject of a verb, the parenthesis waiting to be closed. Not only that, but the particular structure of the transformer, basically a weighted sum of semantic vectors from the context window, has empirically been shown to somehow be a “good enough” match for the structure of real-world language found in the wild.
Transformers aren’t “smarter” than other possible language models, they just happen to land in that Goldilocks zone where their inductive bias is just right.
this sentence above would made a longer article if I bothered to so blog as is being blogged here
What’s not intuitive to me is that through pattern matching it’s able to express logic and reasoning.
Because no, post training doesn't change that.
RL post-training changes the nature of what is being predicted, basically turning it from a copying machine into a goal-seeking machine.
A base model is predicting training sample continuations (copying).
A post-trained model is now steering/narrowing the base model's predictions in directions that were reinforced by RL goals.
The model is no longer predicting what the next token will be, but rather predicting what it should be in order to steer generation in the reinforced directions.
People don't know exactly the words that they're going to say necessarily, but tend to start with a general concept of what they're trying to communicate and only then try to put together the words (sometimes out of order). LLMs do not begin with any sort of concept they're trying to express. LLMs are simulations that attempt to reproduce what an average person might say while wired up to a huge knowledgebase.
Why do the need to? Considering they are merely tools, I actually appreciate they do not do this. A calculator can compute far better than any human, but I appreciate that calculators are not capable of expressing anything about the computations I request. I want the answer, not a conversation.
> LLMs are simulations that attempt to reproduce what an average person might say while wired up to a huge knowledgebase.
If you will allow me to be simplistic, people -- the soul, the self -- are predominately the aggregated effects of memories and experiences and the ability to retain new memories based on new experiences, no? Consider medical conditions in the dementia family of diseases. As memories fade into the ether, what remains of the self?
Also, people simulate/emulate each other all the time based on what an average, reasonable person might say. People incapable or unwilling to perform such mimicry are often labeled with all kinds of pejorative terms.
I have never heard such an argument. Recognition that LLMs are nothing more than next-token predictors does not come from reductionism. It comes from simply knowing how they work e.g. from viewing the inference code.
> "There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself."
My issue is not with fact at face value. My issue is with how the fact is often contextually used in arguments to delegitimize and disparage LLM outputs and LLM users.
Yes, LLMs at a fundamental level are next-token predictors. But in my opinion, LLMs are very useful, imperfect next-token predictors.
There are a lot of wannabe John Henry [1] folks out there. Love LLMs or hate'em, most of those John Henry folks ain't beating these machines on a plethora of tasks.
[1] For those unaware, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore)
You -- along with everyone else who keeps parroting this thought-stopping phrase and other tired cliches like "stochastic parrot", simply because you heard other people say them, without understanding what they really mean, which published research papers they came from, or what those and other papers actually argued -- are desperately clinging to a reductive, short-sighted, shallow, simplistic model like a drowning person clutching a concrete life preserver.
Seriously, we are trying to throw you a lifeline, and you are refusing even to participate in your own rescue. So squawk for yourself.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48395727
> The term "stochastic parrot" is a slogan masquerading as an explanation, only a shallow surface description of the mechanism, that totally fails to explain the phenomenon, or account for all that LLMs and language itself can do.
Here is the original 2021 paper that coined the phrase. It was not primarily an argument about consciousness, nor did its title constitute experimental proof that everything an LLM does can be explained as parroting. It was principally a position paper about the risks of increasingly large language models: environmental and financial costs, biases and hegemonic viewpoints inherited from poorly documented training data, unequal access and power, and the danger of people attributing meaning and accountability to synthetic text.
The paper did, however, make a strong theoretical claim: because an LM is trained on linguistic form without direct access to communicative intent, it cannot possess meaning, understanding, or a model of the world. The authors described it as "haphazardly stitching together sequences of linguistic forms" according to statistical regularities -- hence "a stochastic parrot."
That distinction matters. The popular slogan discards the paper's detailed analysis of actual risks while treating its most controversial theoretical premise as an established scientific result. It has escaped into pop culture as a drive-by anti-LLM slogan -- something people repeat instead of investigating what these systems represent internally, how post-training changes their behavior, or what they can actually do.
Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?"
https://s10251.pcdn.co/pdf/2021-bender-parrots.pdf
Ironically, the objection that rhetoric was replacing scientific analysis appeared almost as soon as the phrase itself -- indeed, before the paper's formal publication. In January 2021, Michael Lissack published a response characterizing the draft as an advocacy piece that enumerated harms while leaving its assumptions, potential benefits, and cost-benefit trade-offs largely unexamined.
"The Slodderwetenschap (Sloppy Science) of Stochastic Parrots -- A Plea for Science to NOT Take the Route Advocated by Gebru and Bender"
The core of the argument as I understood it is that LLMs aren't just using existing data is training but also new ones. That's fine and good, and you can't simply assume an LLM is simply mashing together all it's data to give you an average of all that got fed into it - but at least I would still call it a "next token predictor"
It's not using just training data, but what it's doing is predicting the next token to get to the solution. As far as my amateur knowledge goes, LLMs still roughly go token by token, deciding which one fits best given the context.
It's just not predicting based on it's training data, but predicting based on RLVR & more, trying to get to the optimal solution ( as much as the solutions CAN be optimal)
And I honestly think keeping this very much in mind is helpful in understanding and dealing with LLMs.
The OP is arguing against people who think that an LLM is ‘predicting’ what token would likely follow if the text preceding were found among the corpus it was originally trained on.
Instead it is ‘predicting’ what token would follow if the text were found among really good examples of the text it has being reinforced to produce - be that ‘chats with a helpful assistant’ or ‘sets of changes to a codebase’.
And that isn’t really ‘prediction’, so much as ‘generation’.
It’s not been tuned to ‘guess the next token right’. It’s been tuned to generate the token that leads to it ultimately scoring highest on its reward function.
It’s not predicting the token, it’s predicting the reward.
It is predicting based on a model. In many cases we can download the model off hugging face. The model is conditioned by all sorts of things. Training data, post-training, coincidence, prompt inputs, runtime data available from whatever means.
> but at least I would still call it a "next token predictor"
We can call any prediction system a next token predictor. If you watch over the shoulder of a human writing a HN comment you are almost certain to see them generating a linear string of tokens. That is what keyboards do. It is impossible to generate text without being equivalent to a next token predictor.
I don't really disagree that human cognition is essentially a predictive task though, as I understand it, predictive coding and related theories based on the Bayesian brain hypothesis are fairly popular these days (though maybe not clearly dominant over alterative models? IDK I'm not a neuroscientist). I imagine most people would draft a few tokens before refining them like MTP or diffusion though, if we do decide to use LMs as an analogy to human cognition.
If you're saying it's predicting, then each result should be falsifiable.
The result of an LLM output should be able to be scored against what it is supposedly predicting. Of course, that isn't possible, because it isn't predicting anything when giving novel outputs, otherwise that thing would exist independently.
I think it’s important to make clear the RL part and the alignment and parameter tweaking that gets done on models and inference engines. It makes them more understandable as mechanisms and less like wish-washy super intelligences that make their own decisions.
When these systems win math Olympiads, it’s not terribly surprising or interesting to me. Of course they will: we trained models to play nearly optimal chess games and Go. You tweak the rewards and sigmoid and you start optimizing the function towards your goal. This is how learning systems of all stripes work.
It’s still next-token predicting at the end of the day. I don’t think it’s a reduction-ad-absurdum.
But a lot of people still call it, “intelligence,” and try to use language that obscures what is happening in terms of anthropomorphic behaviour and not machine ones. That really does influence how we use these tools and profits those who would use them on us.
Both systems have emergent behavior that goes well beyond what would naively be expected.
A LLM already knows more tokens than the current one. It was mentioned in a blog post about how a LLM is doing haikus and co.
There are also structures in an LLM which allows it to 'estimate' numbers to a certain degree and doing other things.
Autoregressive LLMs generate tokens one at a time, disputing this is just plain wrong. What is true, however, is that in order to generate the next token autoregressive LLMs produce internal/hidden state about future tokens far past the next token so that it's not like the entire machinery of the algorithm deprives itself of representing where the sentence/text is headed.
So "emits the next token" and "has no representation of anything beyond the next token" are two different claims. What autoregressive LLMs cost as a consequence of strictly outputting the next token is commitment. Once a token is output there's no going back. There's no revision or means of correction, and sometimes this can lead an LLM to route around its own earlier mistakes or simply produce false statements/hallucinations instead of going back and fixing them.
'pattern matching' is a better intuition that 'reasoning' even though I think nominally, using the term 'reasoning' is perfectly fine in that context. It's just a loaded word that brings too much to the table.
'It hasn't seen the pattern' is a better description of the limitations of AI because it really just doesn't generalize very well at all. The adaptations described in the article don't change that.
Those are mutations, not expansions of capability.
1. In order to select even the first word of a meaningful sentence, it already has to have structure and meaning of what follows captured somewhere inside, mostly in it's weights/activations or indexed by it's state vector.
2. What you see when you use an LLM is not next-token prediction directly next to the prompt, but instead following a block of varying length of next-token prediction that happened to make progress on the problem in your prompt, and which just summarizes the results.
EDIT: gentler phrasing
I disagree that this accurately describes TFA.
(I would also agree with the parent commenter on that the writing smells like an LLM.)
The article is littered with both AI tells and admissions that 'next token prediction' is what is happening. Hence my description.
What’s more interesting to me is its application at training time. In reinforcement learning, there is no ground-truth next token to predict.
So if you’re comfortable calling Deep Blue a “next move predictor,” then I think it’s perfectly consistent to call an LLM a “next token predictor.” But I think it’s more useful to think of Deep Blue as evaluating the value of possible moves. roughly, how likely they are to lead to winning.
And I think effectively the same distinction applies here.
i dont understand the distinction here. does working backwards from a set of win states instead of working forwards from the current state somehow change whether it’s a prediction or not?
Current agentic systems may be *built* from next-token predictors which are conceptually simple, but because of agentic frameworks, recursive invocation, tool use, and *heavy* investment in reinforcement learning in these contexts and for specific applications, they can no longer be thought of as "Merely" next token predictors.
To be fair, is there anyone who hasn't been "reading too much Claudish recently" who is also qualified to write on the topic?
I don’t think a chess engine is an apt analogy at all. In a chess engine, there is a concrete search tree and although it emits one move at a time, it’s actually picking the entire branch (of course, with iterative deepening as the game progresses).
There is no obvious place in transformer models where the entire trace was already computed prior to a single token being chosen. It’s possible, maybe even likely, that the whole trace exists internally as activations. Multi token prediction and diffusion adapters point to that being the case. But to my knowledge no explanation has been given for where in the model the future plan is stored.
The analogy with chess still works, but there's an extra step to think about. In both cases there is some kind of search over possible future trajectories. A chess engine explicitly searches branches of the game tree and evaluates which moves lead to good outcomes. In RL for an LLM, you sample rollouts, evaluate the resulting trajectories, and use those evaluations to update the policy.
The extra step with the LLM is that you don't keep doing that whole search at inference time. You use the rollouts to update the weights, so in some sense the useful information from that search gets compressed into the model.
But if you accept that the model is, in some loose sense, storing what it learned from those rollouts in its weights, then at inference time they are doing a similar job: taking some input state (prior tokens or a board position) and choosing the next action.
Or starting with "yes". And this early locking in was a total lie, in the discussion that became "yes, might appear that way, but totally no since reasons". So it should have written "No", topmost, but could not self-edit that.
But nice that this gives it a more nuanced view, I might have to update my priors.
The intermediate representations at each position are being optimised not only to help predict the next token, but also to help predict all subsequent tokens within the training context.
You can see this directly in backpropagation: the gradient reaching a representation at position i sums contributions from prediction losses for subsequent tokens, not just from the loss for token i+1.
That there’s a legion of LLM nerds arguing deterministic this, pretraining & rewards that all the better for the con job they’re pulling off.
The technology will be relegated to the trash bin of history, just like crypto.
It’s not wrong, but because LLMs are generators, and generation is a kind of prediction. And current mainstream models are autoregressive, which means they generate things one by one in order. But these trivia doesn’t tell us anything interesting about how they work or their limits.
It’s like saying a Boeing 777 is just a rotating machine, and it flies by just rotating some fins. Well yes, but no. With that level of simplification we’ve just ignored 150 tons of advanced engineering and physics. Similarly with token generator simplification we ignore a few trillion parameter Transformer. That transformer is more complex than a Boeing 777, and we don’t really know how it works.
A tiny ML model can do “next token prediction”. This is not as simple as that.
The deep realization is that if you can predict the next token well enough, you can do things like this:
<paste the first 10 chapters of a mystery novel>. And it turned out the killer was
And if it's really good at predicting the next token, it has to understand the novel and the clues, which means understanding the context and the language and human norms and innuendo and story telling, and tropes, and red herrings, and predict who the killer was.
I think you want it to be something more complicated. It's literally not. It just turns out predicting the next token is equivalent to a universal compression algorithm, which is a form of general intelligence. And we have almost unlimited 'labeled' data to train autocomplete.
The greatest trick the rich ever pulled was making us think that the economy is about technology, and not politics.
None of this AI political economy stuff was relevant in 2015 because necessary technological breakthroughs had not yet been made.
I fail to see how any possible output could cause either of us to change our mind.
Does it complete the sentence?
If not then it’s not a next token predictor. Or at least not a good one.
- deal with it and stop whitewashing, greywashing it
Relying on it as a mental model for what LLM's are minimizes the emergent properties of scaling. It's like imagining that unicellular life could never eventually evolve into complex multi-cellular organisms because individual cells are just "survival and next-mitosis optimizers"
With reinforcement learning and probably attention and other tricks that affect the weights based on things that aren't strictly in the training data, so the argument goes, you can end up with tokens following strings of tokens that would not be possible to be output with the training data and original weights alone. So describing it as solely a next-token predictor is incorrect based on this framing of it.
But that's just my take on this, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it all.
There’s the mechanical, inference time, autoregressive, one-token-after-another side, which I’m not going to argue isn’t prediction. I just think that’s a relatively uninteresting use of the word “prediction,” because it’s effectively a system predicting its own output.
The more interesting question is what happens at training time. As you describe, reinforcement learning allows the model to learn to output things that it never could have learned simply by predicting what appears in the training corpus.
More concretely, in reinforcement learning there are no ground-truth next tokens to predict.
In supervised machine learning, “prediction” usually means there is some ground-truth label that will eventually be revealed. The model predicts what that label is, the difference between the prediction and the truth gives you a loss, and you learn from that.
But in reinforcement learning, there is no ground-truth action waiting to be revealed. The model chooses an action, observes the consequences, and learns from the reward. To me, that’s a meaningfully different thing from prediction.
Indeed it is, and so is even just the inference method. I think it's worth remembering that both involve running the input tokens through a gargantuan neural network with (often) billions of parameters that only gain semantic meaning during the training process itself.
> it is trained to predict next tokens as they occur in its training data.
What I found important to understand is that not even the pretrainig is a deterministic process that only depends on the training data - as you would expect if the model just captured statistical properties of the data.
Gradient descent starts by setting all the parameters of the neural network to some initial values - usually by setting them at random, according to some distribution. Then during training, it gradually nudges them towards values that somehow make them useful to calculate the desired outcome of the network.
This means that by taking the exact same trainset and the exact same model architecture, you can still get models with different internal structure. The result doesn't just depend on the training data, but also on the order of examples, learning rate, the parameter initialization, etc etc.
It is really not that complicated: words are chosen to lead somewhere.
That is EXACTLY what I would call it. I don't understand why not.
I don't think anyone is doing that though; we know LLMs are not simple Markov chains, and that the prediction they make is based on more than the previous X words.
It's not minimising to describe even a complex prediction process as prediction.
For example, I've noticed quite a few cases recently of LLMs outputting "but" where "and" would make more sense, or vice-versa. Surely that could be improved by such an approach?
Bayesians say that the probabilities represent strength of belief, implying some subjective knowledge or information. It is necessarily subjective in that it requires priors, i.e information the predictor knew before making the prediction. In other words, the LLM has priors from training and is predicting tokens using real knowledge
Frequentists would say that probabilities are simply objective facts - e.g we all agree that the physical property of temperature follows from any molecules matching a particular energy distribution. You’re not predicting anything, there’s just some outcomes that are happening at the expected rate. In other words, the LLM is a stochastic parrot/next token predictor
There's nothing inherent in either word that forces such a limit; predicting based on what will lead to success as measured by [reward function] is still a prediction.
1st I say that "working forwards" in the sense of outputting one token at a time could be some form of prediction, I don't argue against that. This is what LLMs do at inference time.
2nd I say that to me what really constitutes a prediction is the pre-training. Here it's the classic setting for the word prediction in ML. The model outputs a prediction of the ground truth label: the next token.
3rd I argue that in RL there is no ground truth next token, so prediction doesn't apply here anymore.
Back to your question then: you're asking points 3 and 1 are different. Working backwards from a set of win states is basically what RL does in training. Working forward from the current state is what inference does. To me there is a distinction worth thinking about. First between the mechanism at inference time and at train time. Then between what happens in pre-training vs. RL post training.
Also known as predicting.
Like stanleykm, I found this analogy somewhat puzzling. On reflection, I think the author's point is this: the statistics of actual usage do not seem sufficient to produce a fluent LLM; it also takes reinforcement learning.
With an LLM, the tokens are the valuable part. That's what I want from it. That's why it exists. The tokens are the point, and it produces those tokens one by one for me.
Both examples involve the same "aha" moment: even though it's true that you are literally 'just' doing XYZ, unbelievably complex patterns and sub-goals can emerge.
1. Useful work that has been done (the previously generated token sequence :: the mechanical work already accomplished)
2. The role of structure in relation to the application (post-training :: other components like crankshaft etc)
Recursively invoked.
With carefully selected context.
And massive investment in RL to tune token selection.
And the ability to use cli tools on other folks' machines.
That's a powerful system built around a conceptually simple technology: Next token predictors.
It’s also like saying our brains are just electric circuitry incorporated in meat. It’s true but it seems that consciousness emerges from this.
The fact that LLMs are next token predictors isn’t the interesting or impressive part. Actually my brain strictly is a black box predicting (or choosing) my next word/action/move… based on a complex existing context (my thoughts, the environment, my physical state, my senses…).
FWIW, I don’t believe LLMs are sentient, but I don’t think either that we have enough knowledge to rule it out.
It's not. "Brains as electrical circuits" is a gross simplification based on our ignorance and prejudices. (In the 18th century they spoke of brains as "clockwork mechanisms".)
LLMs, in contrast, are literally next token predictors. We know exactly how LLMs work, and they are exactly that.
This is a wildly dismissive statement that does a lot of heavy lifting. Your assertion is that we just happened to hit on a methodology that has no limitations between being an encyclopedia with a novel human language interface and, I guess by implication, AGI?
That seems more outrageous a claim than the one you're dismissing.
When I say there is some issue with people claiming there is some fundamental limit on the capacities of LLM's, I don't mean to say "If you think that they don't have unlimited potential you are wrong", I mean "you can't use the architecture of the transformer to make a sweeping declaration of things LLM's can or cannot do without empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence has unearthed far more surprising revelations than a reductive theory has been able to"
- we get novel, emergent properties and capabilities of these models that were not trained
- they have very clear generalization to out of domain problems
The point is people conflate the end product: a model that can clearly do very novel, useful and interesting things, with the vehicle for getting there which is a series of optimization steps involving next token prediction loss.
You mention limitations; we all clearly know the practical limitations of these models today, but if you look at scaling laws and empirical performance trends (epoch capability index for example) as well as the trajectory over the last couple of years (very stable), the claim that there is some sort of fundamental limitation is now surprisingly the claim that has the burden of proof.
You can claim it may be e.g. finite context. That is fundamentally bad for certain classes of tasks. This was the hypothesis of a lot of lab leadership of urgently trying to anticipate how to get around this bottleneck (still of course lots of work on this) but the surprising thing is it does not appear to be at this point a blocker.
Exactly. We're dancing around the real argument: there's massive amounts of influencing going on (and not only about AI.)
No amount of cope and anthropomorphizing is gonna change that cold, hard fact.
P.S. The perceived magic of LLMs comes from the way they cross-correlate all the probabilities of tokens on their context window. Not from their ability to "think ahead". They can't do that by design.
It is similar to how everything ends up being Turing complete. Any prediction system has to be equivalent to some sufficiently complicated text generation system to describe the prediction. And any text-generation system has to be equivalent to a sufficiently complicated model that serially emits tokens.
So, it's not a next move predictor. It's a game result predictor.
It's not pedantry. The objective function changes. The optimization changes. THese are real things when training a model, not hand wavy philosophical ideas.
I don't think you intended this, but the word choice here gave me a chortle.
Your mind can pick a random number without outputting it, participate in a short conversation, and then say the number.
A pure next-token language model won't be able to give detailed instructions to an ensemble of motors, mimicking a human body, to do a wide variety of tasks our human brain is excellent at doing, for example, inserting keys into a car, opening the door, sitting down, starting the car, putting the car in reverse, and exit a parking lot, being careful not to hit anything.
They still can't do code accurately. The fact that you use this as a defense of your position greatly undermines the credibility of your claim.
An LLM extrapolates from its context window to the immediate next token. This word applies whether you view what's happening as "reasoning", "prediction", or as a math function.
If I steer a car to avoid a predicted collision with a wall, this is not me 'predicting' the car. I am steering the car based on a prediction.
I think you imply a rather loose standard for "exactly" here. I wouldn't even say this of major deterministic software projects that are orders of magnitude smaller than frontier LLM weight-dumps. In principle we could work our way through these systems eventually, sure, maybe even a single person could do so. But if we really understand exactly how our software works, how have we been tolerating bugs that lay dormant for years before being discovered by AI-assisted processes?
The output of the LLM is literally a probability distribution of what the most likely next token is.
It kind of does, though. In a gasoline engine you need to spark the combustion in advance of the piston reaching top dead-center to ignite the fuel early enough that it is able to provide downward pressure on the piston as it rolls over top dead-center. The amount of advance required changes with RPM, fuel octane, etc.
Start of delivery timing in a diesel is similar. You have to do it sufficiently far in advance to account for compressibility of the injection lines, fuel burn rate, etc as a function of RPM. A mechanical governor on an injection pump has a timing advance device built in. Electronically governed injection pumps, or modern common rail systems, do that in software.
So mechanically, engines kind of "predict" the next combustion event. Even moreso when you consider a modern ECU, which may be working at nanosecond resolution to time multiple injection events per cycle. To do this at such a resolution it will have to send signals to components based on a predictive model derived from "past" sensor data. E.g. it needs to act ahead of time to account for electrical and mechanical delays in the system.
If I choose a specific move in chess, it's a choice. It's not a prediction. I might get a score 40 moves later given my choice, but I'm not predicting the next move.
To compare - during pre-training, the model literally tries to predict the next token (probabilistically), the training loop checks against the "right" answer, and the weights are updated based on that check. It's optimized to predict the next token.
Literally no one here is claiming that it does. This is one of the many flaws in the article.
The linked article makes a good point: a substantial chunk of the training does not consist of "here's a bunch of tokens, here's the next token, learn that." But all the comments want to turn it into a referendum on the goodness of AI.
What is emitted by a model during RLHF and RLVR is not, by structure, training or optimization, a prediction of the next token.
Then you feed a bunch of tokens into a GPU and end up with a distribution of possible next tokens…
But there is no trillion dollar industry around cheap top Markov models. So there must be something about LLM tokens that makes them more valuable than those generated from a simple Markov chain. And that substance, that makes one valuable and the other not, is exactly what reduction to "next-token predictors" masks.
A lot of very clever autocompletes working together can be incredibly dangerous.
Probability(y | x)
> Prediction implies there is some "truth" or event or something that you can test against
there absolutely is a ground truth during training. the core predict-the-next-most-likely-token part of an LLM has a ground truth next-token. that's why you don't end up with generated text like: fish spurious send cattle chocolate phone happy meaning ball orange board canada.
> optimizes to predict the next token in training data
that is the optimization goal in training the next-most-likely-token core of an LLM, it basically translates to maximise the likelihood of predicting the next token x_i given the previous tokens
L(θ) = −log Π^n_{i=1} f_θ(x_i | x1, ..., x_{i−1})
(edit: sorry for the ADHD edits)
Respectfully, you are miles out of your depth. GPT-2 didn't use any reinforcement learning and is often given as a toy example. That release was 2019 and models now go through a various phases of training with different objective functions and optimizers.
If we suppose that the word "know" can sanely be applied to LLMs at all, then "A LLM already knows more tokens than the current one." seems to me like a perfectly reasonable restatement of that, and not any kind of misinterpretation.
> There's no revision or means of correction, and sometimes this can lead an LLM to route around its own earlier mistakes or simply produce false statements/hallucinations instead of going back and fixing them.
Yes. There is no contradiction. Similarly, when humans speak, we surely have in mind the next few words we're going to say (or at least partial information about them), and may not realize the fault in them until after hearing ourselves utter them. But LLMs are not trained to output "excuse me, I mean…" sorts of things, because they're expected to output primarily as text (which might possibly then be fed to TTS).
But when we talk about humans, we're not talking about the chemicals involved in those humans.
When we talk about LLMs, the tokens are the valuable thing they produce for us. We want LLMs because they give us sequences of tokens.
To be clear, all life is a next state of the local world predictor. What makes humans somewhat unique among life is we're much better at predicting states of the world neither we nor any of our ancestors have ever experienced, for various reasons such as having the ability to legibly communicate very complicated information strings to each other, being able to build and use tools to record states of the world we can't directly sense.
Similarly, what makes LLMs and multimodal versions of the same architectures "better" than previous generations of electronic predictive models is factors like being able to read and understand roughly the same corpus of data humans have been recording all these millennia, being able to read and remember much more of it than any individual human, and being better at generalizing than other electronic predictive models, but not better than humans. And, of course, they can produce far more predictions in far less time. Frankly, that is probably the key advantage that makes the Hacker News crowd love them so much. They're not any better at predicting byte strings that can be compiled or interpreted into executable code than humans are if you gave both infinite time to do it, but they're a lot faster.
For example, you could cite specific things that you believe to be "AI tells" or "admissions".
> Strictly speaking, the statement “LLMs are next-token predictors” isn’t wrong, but it’s incomplete.
The article is about how 'next-token predictor' is the wrong mental model; it opens with the admission that it is not the wrong mental model.
To say that a statement is incomplete, but not strictly speaking wrong, is perfectly compatible with describing it informally as "wrong" in the sense used in the title (i.e.: "not the most appropriate possibility").
To summarize: yes, RLVR and other synthetic training methods exist! It’s still a next-token predictor, and it does not “learn” or “think” or “reason” in the human sense, like so many people seem to believe.
But that’s the point: so is an LLM. Putting one token in front of another, hoping it’s doing the right thing to bring about the rewards it’s trained to… trying its best.
So yeah, not ‘next token predictors’. ‘Next token tryers’ maybe.
> I don’t think it’s a good reason to dismiss this
AI-generated prose reads as sending a 'lack of effort' signal to a lot of people, just as no editing at all does. ; It's an effective heuristic that we've all learnt in the last couple of years.
In either case, it's not always fair: there are people who deeply care about their ideas but forget to fix basic errors, or pass it through AI.
In both cases though, the advice is the same: if you want people to take your output seriously, you need to signal that you are taking it seriously. That used to mean editing for spelling and grammar. Now it means not using AI.
Personally I would never let an LLM touch my prose (although I'd happily use it for research and paraphrase things it told me), but if I force myself to consider the idea, that seems like the first thing I'd want. Maybe upon reading a diff you'd even consider going a third way with the text.
There's a certain irony in pointing me towards the guidelines on the grounds that I have limited patience with your comments that violate them in various ways. I'm not sure that this is a productive discussion.
> Autoregressive LLMs generate tokens one at a time, disputing this is just plain wrong.
next-token prediction i.e. the bit built during pre-training.
at no point in your reply to GP did you specify that you were referring to post-training. respectfully, it seems like this one is on you pal :shrug:
> GPT-2 didn't use any reinforcement learning and is often given as a toy example. That release was 2019 and models now go through a various phases of training with different objective functions and optimizers.
yeah. so? the toy example works for pre-training. see above.
again, the finished product wasn't what was discussed by GP, and you didn't clarify that you were switching to discussing RL (which is still probabilistic btw)
I guess the people in my camp find the "it's just a next token predictor" stupid in that it's like saying "it's just a bunch of carbon and hydrogen", but it's also one of those things where people like to think they are clever because they think they are theoretically correct. But they aren't even that. So it's like double stupid. But the "next token predictor" part is at least technically correct (like, carbon and hydrogen right) for pretraining, so the debate can't really be won there.
If you can’t grasp that logic gap then there’s no point discussing further.
1. At inference time, LLMs emit one token at a time given the prior tokens. This looks like prediction and I concede that.
2. During pre-training, LLMs predict the next token and compare to the actual next token in the training data. This is the classic setting for ML predictions. And I think its meaningful, the model really is predicting what the ground truth next token will be in the data.
3. During post-training, in the case of RLVR, there is no ground truth next token. In pretraining, the question is "what token actually came next?". In RLVR, the question is "what sequence of actions gets a high reward?"
And the whole point is that thinking about the RLVR is important. A mental model that stops at 1 or 2 is incomplete and doesn't capture what drives LLM tokens.
And it's not just RLVR. RLHF has been going on for years and years. LLMs have not been "next token predictors" for probably 5-6 years.
No logic required, you can just build an LLM yourself, including post training. You'll see that predicting the next token isn't something the model does or is optimized for in RLHF or RLVR. You can hand wave all you like, but you have never done it.
Carry on good soldier.
You aren't in this field. You are clearly wrong and just can't handle it.
To understand how an engine works, it's important to understand what a piston does as part of the engine.
The model weights change as the model goes through the training process. They aren't stored after pre-training is done and other weights are put somewhere else. It's more like pottery - the thing changes. It's not correct to say something is soft and malleable because it once was.
My understanding is it usually strengthens the "thinking ahead" part of inference, but that part was already there, and it's still at the end of the day picking one token and then purging internal state in a way that can only partially be recovered from.
One may reasonably assert it isn't trying to do anything. But, in practice, if you give it an objective function and optimize it, the model is basically trained to "do" something. So what is it trained to "do"? During pre training it is trained to produce a distribution which is a prediction of the next token in it's training data samples. During RLVR and RLHF, it is trained to produce a distribution of tokens that will maximize a scoring function over many steps - not just the next step. The fact that it produces a distribution of potential choices for the next step doesn't mean the next step is a prediction. It's more of a "strategy" or "probabilistic path choice". The word used in RL is a "policy". It's a decent word to describe what the model is.
So, modern LLMs are trying to produce a good sequence of tokens. They are "good token sequence producer machines". Not "next token prediction machines". Pre RLHF (in practice, go back to pre chatgpt) they really were "next token prediction machines".
clever procedures on top of the base transformer architecture.
i used simplified words/phrases to summarise the same thing you two were saying (the intent being: here's a version that may be digestible when discussing with others).
apparently that means i'm wrong though, no idea why because it seems you've decided to be dismissive rather than constructively elaborate on why this simplified and digestible version might be wrong :shrug:
That you tie yourself up in knots of fancy acronyms instead of plain words and that your argument boils down to semantics of the word prediction, it's pretty clear what is up brother.
Yes. They do. You are absolutely right about that.
But the model architecture doesn't change as a result of the training process. A piston doesn't suddenly turn into a digital watch as a result of tuning an engine. Similarly, the transformer part of a GPT model doesn't suddenly turn into something else as a result of optimizing a loss function.
---
i've got other stuff to do, so i'm stopping here.