← Back to context

Comment by dandaka

2 months ago

I think this is a well known concept, which we can't deliver yet. LLM/transformer give us reasoning engine as a byproduct of its design, but it is quite ineffective. If we can distill reasoning, if reasoning can be achieved without general knowledge, it will be a very effective machine.

Some amount of knowledge is required for reasoning. Maybe such model can dynamically knowledge domains to have taxonomy. For example, model can't effective reason about development task, if it has no knowledge about development best practices. But population of New York or recipies can definitely be loaded run time with tools.

>Some amount of knowledge is required for reasoning.

This is the root of problem. If you think about STEM universities, they don't really teach you things you need in the real world. They teach you what you need to know in order to go out there and accumulate the necessary information which can then be used to solve problems. Giving a person access to the internet or a super powerful calculator (like Mathematica) won't mean that they can do anything useful. They need tons of experience to use these tools in an effective way. That experience is basically all that implicit adjacent knowledge that we pick up along the way getting our degrees. And LLMs pick that up during pre-training. Drop this part and the outcome will be worthless.

  • Take mathematics as an example. Humanity has found math notation, which allowed to express math rules — distill them to the core. Before math was expressed in prose — a very inefficient way, very similar to current LLMs.

    In my school, math teacher was giving me prose, which I was converting to math notation. I could argue, that this prose→reasoning conversion is not required at training, and can be obtained at inference time with search tools.

Yup, you still need knowledge. Even if you have access to all the data and tools, you still need to know what to search for, what tools to use and to understand what the user is asking.

Our computers can already do everything, have access to all the tools and information, yet they still need a human/intelligence to use it and apply to specific problems.

Even defining the problem requires knowledge.

As for the tools, if the model has access to 1000 tools, how would it know which one to use if it doesn't have any knowledge itself?

What if I ask for "table tennis spin" it had a "magnus effect calculator", how would it know to make the connection between the two?

  • Model can use tools to get that knowledge. In your example, read Wikipedia page about table tennis. Imagine a reasoning engine with a big enough context, that knows nothing. A path built from first principles to understand "table tennis spin" — does not look very long for me.

    • How would it know about Wikipedia and when to use it? From the tool description? If we had 100k such tools, then that wouldn't even fit in the context.

      This is only one example, plus if the topic is more complex, maybe it had to search/learn everything (what is table tennis, what is spin, what is a human, what is a ball), etc. So it would be like spawning a baby human, have it spend an (instant) life learning about the world before providing an answer. Maybe this could work in 10 yesrs, if models get stronger with huge context lengths and almost instant data retrieval. Is it the best way to go about things though? Most animals have most of their core abilities embedded in their DNA and "instincts". A cat doesn't have to learn what a bird is in order to hunt it, it's already "embedded" in its neural pathways, or even deeper, at a full-body level. Those type of systems are a lot more efficient than the learned ones. Maybe the best future AI, will have everything already embedded, instead of just being a strong reasoning machine. All AI responses should be instant and like "reflexes" instead of reasoned steps.

      4 replies →

    • It probably can't use all the truth in its content window, not yet anyway.

      E.g. you put a graph in its content window, and you ask it to find a Hamiltonian cycle, can it do it?

      Probably this could be a next step in the future for more powerful AIs, a layer that abstracts the facts in its content window away, and a layer that solves this types of abstractions.