Inside An LLM

1作者: TimeForAChange大约 1 个月前原帖
I’ve always been amazed by children.<p>They are sponges.<p>Give them something to learn and they learn it quickly. Too quickly.<p>Psychologists call this memory plasticity.<p>A child can absorb sensory information, hold it together, and make sense of it almost immediately.<p>Learning doesn’t arrive one piece at a time. It happens in parallel.<p>Many impressions, held at once, until patterns begin to stand out on their own.<p>As we grow older, that plasticity fades. We stop absorbing so easily.<p>We carry more. But we change less.<p>In 2017, a Google research paper helped ignite the current wave of AI. Its title was simple:<p>All You Need Is Attention.<p>The idea was not to hand-build understanding. Not to carefully specify every connection in advance.<p>Instead: turn experience into tokens, examine their relationships all at once, and let structure emerge.<p>Up to that point, much of AI had tried to design intelligence explicitly. Representations. Connections. Rules.<p>It worked. But slowly. At enormous cost.<p>The new proposal was different. Just throw everything at it. Let the system figure it out.<p>In other words: teach the system the way a baby learns.<p>But the environments are not the same.<p>Children learn by being immersed in the world. Large language models learn by being immersed in the internet.<p>One of these environments contains playgrounds, stories, and banged knees.<p>The other contains comment sections. At scale.<p>And then there is a hard boundary.<p>At some point, the learning must stop.<p>The figuring-out is frozen into place— for better or worse— so the system can be used.<p>An LLM may have learned a great deal. But it has learned only what was present in its training.<p>This is what developers mean when they say a model is stateless.<p>It does not progress. It does not accumulate.<p>It resets.<p>Each time you use it, you are meeting the same frozen system again.<p>It may be intelligent. But it cannot learn more than it already knows— except for what you place in the prompt.<p>And when the session ends, that too disappears.<p>This has become a quiet frustration for many users.<p>Because the question isn’t whether these systems are intelligent.<p>It’s whether intelligence without the ability to change is learning at all.<p>---<p>Also on Medium: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@roger_gale&#x2F;where-mistakes-go-to-learn-51a82a6f1187<p>If you enjoyed this, I&#x27;m writing a series on AI limitations and learning.
查看原文
I’ve always been amazed by children.<p>They are sponges.<p>Give them something to learn and they learn it quickly. Too quickly.<p>Psychologists call this memory plasticity.<p>A child can absorb sensory information, hold it together, and make sense of it almost immediately.<p>Learning doesn’t arrive one piece at a time. It happens in parallel.<p>Many impressions, held at once, until patterns begin to stand out on their own.<p>As we grow older, that plasticity fades. We stop absorbing so easily.<p>We carry more. But we change less.<p>In 2017, a Google research paper helped ignite the current wave of AI. Its title was simple:<p>All You Need Is Attention.<p>The idea was not to hand-build understanding. Not to carefully specify every connection in advance.<p>Instead: turn experience into tokens, examine their relationships all at once, and let structure emerge.<p>Up to that point, much of AI had tried to design intelligence explicitly. Representations. Connections. Rules.<p>It worked. But slowly. At enormous cost.<p>The new proposal was different. Just throw everything at it. Let the system figure it out.<p>In other words: teach the system the way a baby learns.<p>But the environments are not the same.<p>Children learn by being immersed in the world. Large language models learn by being immersed in the internet.<p>One of these environments contains playgrounds, stories, and banged knees.<p>The other contains comment sections. At scale.<p>And then there is a hard boundary.<p>At some point, the learning must stop.<p>The figuring-out is frozen into place— for better or worse— so the system can be used.<p>An LLM may have learned a great deal. But it has learned only what was present in its training.<p>This is what developers mean when they say a model is stateless.<p>It does not progress. It does not accumulate.<p>It resets.<p>Each time you use it, you are meeting the same frozen system again.<p>It may be intelligent. But it cannot learn more than it already knows— except for what you place in the prompt.<p>And when the session ends, that too disappears.<p>This has become a quiet frustration for many users.<p>Because the question isn’t whether these systems are intelligent.<p>It’s whether intelligence without the ability to change is learning at all.<p>---<p>Also on Medium: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@roger_gale&#x2F;where-mistakes-go-to-learn-51a82a6f1187<p>If you enjoyed this, I&#x27;m writing a series on AI limitations and learning.