← Back to context

Comment by jvanderbot

2 days ago

A better statement might be:

    Current agentic systems may be *built* from next-token predictors which are conceptually simple, but because of agentic frameworks, recursive invocation, tool use, and *heavy* investment in reinforcement learning in these contexts and for specific applications, they can no longer be thought of as "Merely" next token predictors.

Modern agentic work is probably more of a "emergent system from simple rules and complex interactions" paradigm than a genuinely new technology.

Nope. Post training means even the raw model isn't predicting.

  • In what sense is the model not predicting?

    • There isn't a truth to test against. If I predict the next word in a sequence is "sat", we can check against the sequence. If I predict the roll of a die will be 4, we can check against it. Whether i give 100% or give a probabilistic prediction, we can check against the truth.

      If I choose a specific move in chess, it's a choice. It's not a prediction. I might get a score 40 moves later given my choice, but I'm not predicting the next move.

      To compare - during pre-training, the model literally tries to predict the next token (probabilistically), the training loop checks against the "right" answer, and the weights are updated based on that check. It's optimized to predict the next token.

      3 replies →