[alpha_squared]

One thing I'll add that isn't touched on here is about context windows. While not "infinite", humans have a very large context window for problems they're specialized in solving. Models can often overcome their context window limitations by having larger and more diverse training sets, but that still isn't really a solution to context windows.

Yes, I get the context window increases over time and that for many purposes it's already sufficient enough, but the current paradigm forces you to compress your personal context into a prompt to produce a meaningful result. In a language as malleable as English, this doesn't feel like engineering so much as it feels like incantations and guessing. We're losing so, so much by skipping determinism.

[lxgr]

Humans don't have this fixed split into "context" and "weights", at least not over non-trivial time spans.

For better or worse, everything we see and do ends up modifying our "weights", which is something current LLMs just architecturally can't do since the weights are read-only.

[globular-toast]

This is why I actually argue that LLMs don't use natural language. Natural language isn't just what's spoken by speakers right now. It's a living thing. Every day in conversation with fellow humans your very own natural language model changes. You'll hear some things for the first time, you'll hear others less, you'll say things that get your point across effectively first time, and you'll say some things that require a second or even third try. All of this is feedback to your model.

All I hear from LLM people is "you're just not using it right" or "it's all in the prompt" etc. That's not natural language. That's no different from programming any computer system.

I've found LLMs to be quite useful for language stuff like "rename this service across my whole Kubernetes cluster". But when it comes to specific things like "sort this API endpoint alphabetically" I find the amount of time to learn to construct an appropriate prompt is the same if I'd have just learnt to program, which I already have done. And then there's the energy used by the LLM to do it's thing which is enormously wasteful.

[HumblyTossed]

> All I hear from LLM people is "you're just not using it right" or "it's all in the prompt" etc. That's not natural language. That's no different from programming any computer system.

This right here is the nail on the head. When you use (a) language to ask a computer to return you a response, there's a word for that and it's "programming". You're programming the computer to return data. This is just programming at a higher level, but we've always been increasing the level at which we program. This is just a continuation of that. These systems are not magical, nor will they ever be.

[alpha_squared]

I agree, I'm mostly trying to illustrate how difficult it is to fit our working model of the world into the LLM paradigm. A lot of comments here keep comparing the accuracy of LLMs with humans and I feel that glosses over so much of how different the two are.

[daveguy]

Honestly we have no idea what the human split is between "context" and "weights" aside from a superficial understanding that there are long term and short term memories. The long term memory/experience seems a lot closer to context than it is to dynamic weights. We don't suddenly forget how to do a math problem when we pick up an instrument (ie our "weights" don't seem to update as easily and quickly as context does for an LLM).

[antisthenes]

> humans have a very large context window for problems they're specialized in solving

Do they? I certainly don't. I don't know if it's my memory deficiency, but I frequently hit my "context window" when solving problems of sufficient complexity.

Can you provide some examples of problems where humans have such large context windows?

[lelanthran]

> Do they? I certainly don't. I don't know if it's my memory deficiency, but I frequently hit my "context window" when solving problems of sufficient complexity.

Human context windows are not linear. They have "holes" in them which are quickly filled with extrapolation that is frequently correct.

It's why you can give a human an entire novel, say "Christine" by Stephen King, then ask them questions about some other novel until their "context window" is filled, then switch to questions about "Christine" and they'll "remember" that they read the book (even if they get some of the details wrong).

> Can you provide some examples of problems where humans have such large context windows?

See above.

The reason is because humans don't just have a "context window", they have a working memory that is also their primary source of information.

IOW, if we change LLMs so that each query modifies the weights (i.e. each query is also another training data-point), then you wouldn't need a context window.

With humans, each new problem effectively retrains the weights to incorporate the new information. With current LLMs the architecture does not allow this.

[gf000]

It's a very large context window, but it is compressed down a lot. I don't know every line of insert your PL of choice's standard library, but I do know a lot of it with many different excerpts from the documentation, relevant experiences where I used this over that, or edge cases/bugs that one might fall into. Add to it all the domain knowledge for the given project, with explicit knowledge of how the clients will use the product, etc, but even stuff like what might your colleague react to to this approach vs another.

And all this can be novelly combined and reasoned with to come up with new stuff to put into the "context window", and it can be dynamically extended at any point (e.g. you recall something similar during a thought train and "bring it into context").

And all this was only the current task-specific window, which lives inside the sum total of your human experience window.

[vntok]

If you're 50 years old, your personality is a product of 50-ish years. Another way to say this is that humans have a very large context window (that can span multiple decades) for solving the problem of presenting a "face" to the world (socializing, which is something humans in general are specifically good at).