“Notably, O3-MINI, despite being one of the best reasoning models, frequently skipped essential proof steps by labeling them as “trivial”, even when their validity was crucial.”
LLMs are a lot more sophisticated than we initially thought, read the study yourself.
Essentially they do not simply predict the next token, when scientists trace the activated neurons, they find that these models plan ahead throughout inference, and then lie about those plans when asked to say how they came to a conclusion.
You didn’t link to the study; you linked to the PR release for the study. This and this are the papers linked in the blog post.
Note that the papers haven’t been published anywhere other than on Anthropic’s online journal. Also, what the papers are doing is essentially tea leaf reading. They take a look at the swill of tokens, point at some clusters, and say, “there’s a dog!” or “that’s a bird!” or “bitcoin is going up this year!”. It’s all rubbish dawg
To be fair, the typesetting of the papers is quite pleasant and the pictures are nice.
Fair enough, you’re the only person with a reasonable argument, as nobody else can seem to do anything other than name calling.
Linking to the actual papers and pointing out they haven’t been published to a third party journal is far more productive than whatever anti-scientific bullshit the other commenters are doing.
We should be people of science, not reactionaries.
This isn’t debate club or men of science hour, this is a forum for making fun of idiocy around technology. If you don’t like that you can leave (or post a few more times for us to laugh at before you’re banned).
As to the particular paper that got linked, we’ve seen people hyping LLMs misrepresent their research as much more exciting than it actually is (all the research advertising deceptive LLMs for example) many many times already, so most of us weren’t going to waste time to track down the actual paper (and not just the marketing release) to pick apart the methods. You could say (raises sunglasses) our priors on it being bullshit were too strong.
you got banned before I got to you, but holy fuck are you intolerable
We should be people of science, not reactionaries.
which we should do by parroting press releases and cherry picking which papers count as science, of course
but heaven forbid anyone is rude when they rightly tell you to go fuck yourself
reactionaries
So, how does any of this relate to wanting to go back to an imagined status quo ante? (yes, I refuse to use reactionary in any other way than to describe politcal movements. Conservatives do not can fruits).
E: I see i got a downvote, ow god do we have tankies?
read the study yourself
- > ask the commenter if it’s a study or a self-interested blog post
- > they don’t understand
- > pull out illustrated diagram explaining that something hosted exclusively on the website of the for-profit business all authors are affiliated with is not the same as a peer-reviewed study published in a real venue
- > they laugh and say “it’s a good study sir”
- > click the link
- > it’s a blog post
Essentially they do not simply predict the next token
looks inside
it’s predicting the next token
every time I read these posters it’s in that type of the Everyman characters in the discworld that say some utter lunatic shit and follow it up with “it’s just [logical/natural/obvious/…]”
Read the paper, it’s not simply predicting the next token. For instance, when writing a rhyming couplet, it first plans ahead on what the rhyme is, and then fills in the rest of the sentence.
The researchers were surprised by this too, they expected it to be the other way around.
Aw, you can’t handle a little science so you decide to throw insults instead.
pray forgive, fair poster, for the shame I have cast upon myself in the action of doubting the Most Serious Article so affine to yourself - clearly a person of taste and wit, and I deserve the ire and muck resultant
wait… wait, no, sorry! got those the wrong way around. happens all the time - guess I tried too hard to think like you.
This study is bullshit, because they only trace evaluations and not trace training process that align tokens with probabilities.
remember, if we look too closely at the magic box, we might notice how we’ve been fooled the box will stop magicing for us!
Well, every civilisation needs it’s prophets. Our civilisation built prophet machines that will kill us. We just didn’t get to the killing step yet.
