←back to thread

108 points bertman | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
philipswood ◴[] No.43820173[source]
> Theories are developed by doing the work and LLMs do not do the work. They ingest the output of work.

It isn't certain that this framing is true. As part of learning to predict the outcome of the work token by token, LLMs very well might be "doing the work" as an intermediate step via some kind of reverse engineering.

replies(1): >>43820520 #
skydhash ◴[] No.43820520[source]
> As part of learning to predict the outcome of the work token by token

They're already have the full work available. When you're reading the source code of a program to learn how it works, your objective is not to learn what keyword are close to each other or extract the common patterns. You're extracting a model which is an abstraction about some real world concept (or some other abstractions) and rules of manipulation of that abstraction.

After internalizing that abstraction, you can replicate it with whatever you want, extends it further,... It's an internal model that you can shape as you please in your mind, then create a concrete realization once you're happy with the shape.

replies(1): >>43821733 #
philipswood ◴[] No.43821733[source]
As Naur describes this, the full code and documentation, and the resulting model you can build up from it is merely "walking the path" (as the blogpost put it), and does not encode "building the path".

I.e. the theory of the program as it exist in the minds of the development team might not be fully available for reconstruction from just the final code and docs since it includes a lot of activity that does not end up in the code.

replies(2): >>43822857 #>>43822998 #
1. skydhash ◴[] No.43822857{3}[source]
It could be, if you were trying to only understand how the code does something. But more often, you're actively trying to understand how it was built by comparing assumptions with the code in front of you. It is not merely walking the path, if you've created a similar path and are comparing techniques.
replies(1): >>43830694 #
2. philipswood ◴[] No.43830694[source]
Agreed. I like the paper and I think it raises important considerations, but it does overstate its case a bit. I mean - people do learn new codebases after all. It's just more difficult to do than some think.