I often see a lot of people with outdated understanding of modern LLMs.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

  • Womble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is a really good science communication article, it describes their work in clear terms (finding structures that relate to abstract concepts, seeing when they are activated and how strengthening and weaking them modifies outputs) and goes into the implications for it. I’m probably going to save this link as a rebuttal for the people who claim LLMs just predict the next word and have no concepts embedded in them.

    • A_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes, good topic, good research…
      ( you have a few typos : intobthe … into the, predicr … predict, im … i am. )

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    There is no mind. It’s pretty clear that these people don’t understand their own models. Pretending that there’s a mind and the other absurd anthropomorphisms doesn’t inspire any confidence. Claude is not a person jfc.