[nearbuy]

If anything, the seahorse emoji case is exactly the type of thing you wouldn't expect to happen if LLMs just repeated information from their training corpus. It starts producing a weird dialogue that's completely unlike its training corpus, while trying to produce an emoji it's never seen during training. Why would it try to write an emoji that's not in its training data? This is totally different than its normal response when asked to produce a non-existent emoji. Normally, it just tells you the emoji doesn't exist.

So what is it repeating?

It's not enough to just point to an instance of LLMs producing weird or dumb output. You need to show how it fits with your theory that they "just repeating information". This is like pointing out one of the millions of times a person has said something weird, dumb, or nonsensical and claiming it proves humans can't think and can only repeat information.

[devmor]

> It starts producing a weird dialogue that's completely unlike its training corpus

But it's not doing that. It's just replacing a relation in vector space with one that we would think is distant.

Of course you would view an LLM's behavior as mystifying and indicative of something deeper when you do not know what it is doing. You should seek to understand something before assigning mysterious capabilities to it.

[nearbuy]

You're not addressing the objection. What is it about your model of how you think LLMs work (that it's just "repeated information") that predicts they'd go haywire when asked about a seahorse emoji (and only the seahorse emoji)? Why does your model explain this better than the standard academic view of deep neural nets?

You just pointed out an example of LLMs screwing up and then skipped right to "therefore they're just repeating information" without showing this is what your explanation predicts.

[devmor]

If you want to have a conversation with me, please stop creating fake quotes and assigning them to me, and please stop lying.

[nearbuy]

"repeated information" was copied verbatim from your comment. Your full sentence was:

> What you've mistaken for a "logical model" is simply a large amount of repeated information.

[devmor]

If you copy two words from me and put them in a difference sentence that means something else, that's a lie. If you want to argue with a strawman, that's something you can go rely on an LLM for instead of me.

[nearbuy]

I haven't lied. You're making accusations in bad faith. This was a faithful representation of your position as best as I can tell from your comment.

If you'd like to explain why "What you've mistaken for a 'logical model' is simply a large amount of repeated information." actually means something else, or why you think I've misinterpreted it, be my guest.