Comment by jacquesm
4 days ago
> a trillion-parameter transformer model built using many layers is likely significantly easier to read than one that only has a few million parameters but was constructed using neuroevolution over one gigantic layer.
Why do you believe this?
Neuroevolution is a discontinuous way to go about building the network. You are evolving the topology itself from zero. You don't know how many parameters you will have until the training is complete (if it ever does). With a transformer model you start with a known-good topology and can calculate how long a training run will take.
Yes. In that sense it is equivalent to a compression method that uses K-means clustering to do the partitioning. But because there are many more bits of knowledge out there than there are bits in the models you end up with this amorphous smear. I'm sure some of those bits carry more information about some of the concepts but in general - and that's the way it is explained in just about all the papers I've read that I can still comprehend - every weight contributes to the output in a dense model. In an MOE things get more complicated but there within every 'MOE' column the same principle applies.
I'm fine with taking this article at the high level conceptual level, that's effectively the kind of thinking that led to MOE to begin with. But I don't see that as a pathway to being able to 'explain' a model. Because if you could actually explain a model you could engineer the weights, you wouldn't need any training because it implies that you can improve on the model by simply performing surgery on the weights to get it to do what it does but better. Now, obviously, unlike the author I'm a complete nobody but for the last two years or so I've been trying very hard to understand what is going on under the hood.
It's akin to feature engineering - or rather, the lack thereof - and to see a strong suggestion that we maybe be able to reverse that is interesting, but absent hard proof at how a particular model reached a particular conclusion it is difficult to give that a lot of weight right now. It is possible that such proof is buried somewhere in TFA and I overlooked it during reading. But I think this is speculative rather than that it proves anything and before I'm going to be convinced I would like a little more evidence.
Weights are probably the wrong place to look. If there's a structure to be found, it's in the latent space itself.
Crude analogy: a Fourier transform of a photo looks like white noise with some abstract geometric patterns on top. You can't see the photo in it. But if you apply the same transform again, suddenly you get the photo back. If you try altering the DFT image, you can affect the photo's appearance everywhere, all at once, but it's hard to fundamentally change what it shows. You quickly discover that all pixels of an image contribute to every pixel of the DFT, and vice versa. There's a well-defined connection between the two, and it allows for some useful engineering, but in sense of understanding what's on the image, it's about the maximally unhelpful representation there is.
Point being, there obviously is some kind of structure in the way LLMs represent their training data, so if all we see is noise, perhaps we're looking at a bad representation of it.
羊.
This is a Chinese character that can refer to goats, rams, and several other kinds of "medium-sized animal with thick wooly coats and horns". English has no direct equivalent; we have to be too specific when we talk about these animals.
A model with a small number of neurons has to compact its concepts in order to fit within the parameter count while reducing loss. OP's article shows that the compaction is usually generalization: "goat" and "ram" get compressed into "羊". The canonical example of superposition, an image model where "car" feeds into a bunch of "dog" features, was shown to be actually generalization. In a sense, the model was so small that its optimizer didn't have the parameter budget to distinguish between "car" and "dog"; it has a single set of "thing that moves fast" features.
So basically, really small models are merging features into semantic buckets that are so generalized they don't make sense to big human brains unless we really, really squint. The buckets chosen happen to be what has the lowest loss, of course.
Ok, so assuming that this all holds: you could then create a model that is substantially larger than the ones that we have now and at some point the model would become sparse: there would be ample space to accommodate all of the information in the input without weights ever carrying more than one piece of information. The degree to which you get overlap is then a function of the ratio between the size of the model and the size of the input and this is pretty much in line with the conventional way of looking at models (unless I'm grossly mistaken). So by reducing the size of the model relative to the size of the input you force the model to co-locate multiple pieces of information to the point that they start to resemble each other more and more.
But from my earliest experiments with this stuff that's not really what happens. Yes, you get 'feature like' regions in the models. But those feature like regions, even though they encode something particular do not encode concepts the way we would normally use them and I fail to see how this pathway would lead to an explainable model in the sense that would could use something simpler than the model itself to predict its output with a high degree of fidelity.
Nick argues that the regions actually are explainable, we just weren't doing it right. Specifically he argues that both humans and AI seem to have a bias towards wanting explanations that are collections of nouns, but a different framing combined with different investigative techniques and very large/better models can lead to new insights.
1 reply →
Possibly the best and most succinct explanation in the thread thus far.
The posted article argues this many times...
Yes, but it is the same person making the same argument many times. There have been large multitudes of articles by others who are arguing the opposite. It could well be true. But it would take a lot more than just one over-wordy, distraction imaged, clearly co-written by AI article to convince me of that.
GP and the article both make clear arguments for WHY they believe this. You just asked a lazy drive-by question without providing any reasoning at all for your position. If you expect a good response, you need to provide something meaningful to respond to, as it is it just looks like you are providing knee-jerk skepticism without having engaged with the material.
> There have been large multitudes of articles by others who are arguing the opposite
Also, Nick's entire article is framed such that, yes, plenty of others have argued this, and even HE used to believe the opposite, but now does not. So your point about other articles here seems to me to be a sort of non-sequitur.
3 replies →