Comment by quantadev
1 year ago
Right. All the squashing is doing is keeping the output of any neuron in a range of below 1.
But the entire NN itself (Perceptron ones, which most LLMs are) is still completely using nothing but linearity to store all the knowledge from the training process. All the weights are just an 'm' in the basic line equation 'y=m*x+b'. The entire training process does nothing but adjust a bunch of slopes of a bunch of lines. It's totally linear. No non-linearity at all.
The non linearities are fundamental. Without them, any arbitrarily deep NN is equivalent to a shallow NN (easily computable, as GP was saying), and we know those can't even solve the XOR problem.
> nothing but linearity
No, if you have non linearities, the NN itself is not linear. The non linearities are not there primarily to keep the outputs in a given range, though that's important, too.
Nonlinearity somewhere is fundamental, but it doesn't need to be between each layer. You can, for instance, project each input to a higher dimensional space with a nonlinearity, and the problem becomes linearly separable with high probability (cf Cover's Theorem).
So, for XOR, (x, y) -> (x, y, xy), and it becomes trivial for a linear NN to solve.
Architectures like Mamba have a linear recurrent state space system as their core, so even though you need a nonlinearity somewhere, it doesn't need to be pervasive. And linear recurrent networks are surprisingly powerful (https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.06349, https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03308).
> The non linearities are not there primarily to keep the outputs in a given range
Precisely what the `Activation Function` does is to squash an output into a range (normally below one, like tanh). That's the only non-linearity I'm aware of. What other non-linearities are there?
All the training does is adjust linear weights tho, like I said. All the training is doing is adjusting the slopes of lines.
> That's the only non-linearity I'm aware of.
"only" is doing a lot work here because that non-linearity is enough to vastly expand the landscape of functions that an NN can approximate. If the NN was linear, you could greatly simplify the computational needs of the whole thing (as was implied by another commenter above) but you'd also not get a GPT out of it.
7 replies →
With a ReLU activation function, rather than a simple linear function of the inputs, you get a piecewise linear approximation of a nonlinear function.
ReLU enables this by being nonlinear in a simple way, specifically by outputting zero for negative inputs, so each linear unit can then limit its contribution to a portion of the output curve.
(This is a lot easier to see on a whiteboard!)
7 replies →
> squash an output into a range
This isn't the primary purpose of the activation function, and in fact it's not even necessary. For example see ReLU (probably the most common activation function), leaky ReLU, or for a sillier example: https://youtu.be/Ae9EKCyI1xU?si=KgjhMrOsFEVo2yCe
9 replies →