Comment by wisty
2 days ago
Both compression engines and llm work by assigning scores to the next token. If you can guess the probability distribution of the next token you have a near perfect text compressor, and a near perfect llm. Yeah in the real world they have different trade-offs.
Here's a paper by deep mind. https://arxiv.org/pd7f/2309.10668 - titled LANGUAGE MODELING IS COMPRESSION
An LLM is a transformer of a specific size (number of layers, context width, etc), and ultimately number of parameters. A trillion parameter LLM is going to use all trillion parameters regardless of whether you train it on 100 samples or billions of them.
Neural nets, including transformers, learn by gradient descent, according to the error feedback (loss function) they are given. There is no magic happening. The only thing the neural net is optimizing for is minimizing errors on the loss function you give it. If the loss function is next-token error (as it is), then that is ALL it is optimizing for - you can philosophize about what they are doing under the hood, and write papers about that ("we advocate for viewing the prediction problem through the lens of compression"), but at the end of the day it is only pursuant to minimizing the loss. If you want to encourage compression, then you would need to give an incentive for that (change the loss function).