Comment by famouswaffles
1 day ago
There is plenty reason. This article is just one example of many. People bring it up because LLMs routinely do things we call reasoning when we see them manifest in other humans. Brushing it off as 'deep pattern prediction' is genuinely meaningless. Nobody who uses that phrase in that way can actually explain what they are talking about in a way that can be falsified. It's just vibes. It's an unfalsifiable conversation-stopper, not a real explanation. You can replace "pattern matching" with "magic" and the argument is identical because the phrase isn't actually doing anything.
A - A force is required to lift a ball
B - I see Human-N lifting a ball
C - Obviously, Human-N cannot produce forces
D - Forces are not required to lift a ball
Well sir, why are you so sure Human-N cannot produce forces? How is she lifting the ball ? Well Of course Human-N is just using s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ magic.
You seem to be ignoring two things...
First, the obvious one, is that LLMs are trained to auto-regressively predict human training samples (i.e. essentially to copy them, without overfitting), so OF COURSE they are going to sound like the training set - intelligent, reasoning, understanding, etc, etc. The mistake is to anthropomorphize the model because it sounds human, and associate these attributes of understanding etc to the model itself rather than just reflecting the mental abilities of the humans who wrote the training data.
The second point is perhaps a bit more subtle, and is about the nature of understanding and the differences between what an LLM is predicting and what the human cortex - also a prediction machine - is predicting...
When humans predict, what we're predicting is something external to ourself - the real world. We observe, over time we see regularities, and from this predict we'll continue to see those regularities. Our predictions include our own actions as an input - how will the external world react to our actions, and therefore we learn how to act.
Understanding something means being able to predict how it will behave, both left alone, and in interaction with other objects/agents, including ourselves. Being able to predict what something will do if you poke it is essentially what it means to understand it.
What an LLM is predicting is not the external world and how it reacts to the LLMs actions, since it is auto-regressively trained - it is only predicting a continuation of it's own output (actions) based on it's own immediately preceding output (actions)! The LLM therefore itself understands nothing since it has no grounding for what it is "talking about", and how the external world behaves in reaction to it's own actions.
The LLMs appearance of "understanding" comes solely from the fact that it is mimicking the training data, which was generated by humans who do have agency in the world and understanding of it, but the LLM has no visibility into the generative process of the human mind - only to the artifacts (words) it produces, so the LLM is doomed to operate in a world of words where all it might be considered to "understand" is it's own auto-regressive generative process.
You’re restating two claims that sound intuitive but don’t actually hold up when examined:
1. “LLMs just mimic the training set, so sounding like they understand doesn’t imply understanding.”
This is the magic argument reskinned. Transformers aren’t copying strings, they’re constructing latent representations that capture relationships, abstractions, and causal structure because doing so reduces loss. We know this not by philosophy, but because mechanistic interpretability has repeatedly uncovered internal circuits representing world states, physics, game dynamics, logic operators, and agent modeling. “It’s just next-token prediction” does not prevent any of that from occurring. When an LLM performs multi-step reasoning, corrects its own mistakes, or solves novel problems not seen in training, calling the behavior “mimicry” explains nothing. It’s essentially saying “the model can do it, but not for the reasons we’d accept,” without specifying what evidence would ever convince you otherwise. Imaginary distinction.
2. “Humans predict the world, but LLMs only predict text, so humans understand but LLMs don’t.”
This is a distinction without the force you think it has. Humans also learn from sensory streams over which they have no privileged insight into the generative process. Humans do not know the “real world”; they learn patterns in their sensory data. The fact that the data stream for LLMs consists of text rather than photons doesn’t negate the emergence of internal models. An internal model of how text-described worlds behave is still a model of the world.
If your standard for “understanding” is “being able to successfully predict consequences within some domain,” then LLMs meet that standard, just in the domains they were trained on, and today's state of the art is trained on more than just text.
You conclude that “therefore the LLM understands nothing.” But that’s an all-or-nothing claim that doesn’t follow from your premises. A lack of sensorimotor grounding limits what kinds of understanding the system can acquire; it does not eliminate all possible forms of understanding.
Wouldn't the birds that have the ability to navigate from the earth's magnetic field soon say humans have no understanding of electromagnetism ? They get trained on sensorimotor data humans will never be able to train on. If you think humans have access to the "real world" then think again. They have a tiny, extremely filtered slice of it.
Saying “it understands nothing because autoregression” is just another unfalsifiable claim dressed as an explanation.
> This is the magic argument reskinned. Transformers aren’t copying strings, they’re constructing latent representations that capture relationships, abstractions, and causal structure because doing so reduces loss.
Sure (to the second part), but the latent representations aren't the same as a humans. The human's world that they have experience with, and therefore representations of, is the real word. The LLM's world that they have experience with, and therefore representations of, is the world of words.
Of course an LLM isn't literally copying - it has learnt a sequence of layer-wise next-token predictions/generations (copying of partial embeddings to next token via induction heads etc), with each layer having learnt what patterns in the layer below it needs to attend to, to minimize prediction error at that layer. You can characterize these patterns (latent representations) in various ways, but at the end of the day they are derived from the world of words it is trained on, and are only going to be as good/abstract as next token error minimization allows. These patterns/latent representations (the "world model" of the LLM if you like) are going to be language-based (incl language-based generalizations), not the same as the unseen world model of the humans who generated that language, whose world model describes something completely different - predictions of sensory inputs and causal responses.
So, yes, there is plenty of depth and nuance to the internal representations of an LLM, but no logical reason to think that the "world model" of an LLM is similar to the "world model" of a human since they live in different worlds, and any "understanding" the LLM itself can be considered as having is going to be based on it's own world model.
> Saying “it understands nothing because autoregression” is just another unfalsifiable claim dressed as an explanation.
I disagree. It comes down to how do you define understanding. A human understands (correctly predicts) how the real world behaves, and the effect it's own actions will have on the real world. This is what the human is predicting.
What an LLM is predicting is effectively "what will I say next" after "the cat sat on the". The human might see a cat and based on circumstances and experience of cats predict that the cat will sit on the mat. This is because the human understands cats. The LLM may predict the next word as "mat", but this does not reflect any understanding of cats - it is just a statistical word prediction based on the word sequences it was trained on, notwithstanding that this prediction is based on the LLMs world-of-words-model.
9 replies →
Anything can be euphemized. Human intelligence is atoms moving around the brain. General relativity is writing on a piece of paper.
If you want to say human and LLM intelligence are both 'deep pattern prediction' then sure, but mostly and certainly in the case I was replying to, people often just use it as a means to make an imaginary unfalsifiable distinction between what LLMs do and what the super special humans do.