←back to thread

196 points zmccormick7 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
aliljet ◴[] No.45387614[source]
There's a misunderstanding here broadly. Context could be infinite, but the real bottleneck is understanding intent late in a multi-step operation. A human can effectively discard or disregard prior information as the narrow window of focus moves to a new task, LLMs seem incredibly bad at this.

Having more context, but leaving open an inability to effectively focus on the latest task is the real problem.

replies(10): >>45387639 #>>45387672 #>>45387700 #>>45387992 #>>45388228 #>>45388271 #>>45388664 #>>45388965 #>>45389266 #>>45404093 #
ray__ ◴[] No.45387639[source]
This is a great insight. Any thoughts on how to address this problem?
replies(3): >>45387751 #>>45387782 #>>45387912 #
atonse ◴[] No.45387912[source]
Do we know if LLMs understand the concept of time? (like i told you this in the past, but what i told you later should supersede it?)

I know there classes of problems that LLMs can't natively handle (like doing math, even simple addition... or spatial reasoning, I would assume time's in there too). There are ways they can hack around this, like writing code that performs the math.

But how would you do that for chronological reasoning? Because that would help with compacting context to know what to remember and what not.

replies(2): >>45388155 #>>45389376 #
1. loudmax ◴[] No.45388155[source]
LLMs certainly don't experience time like we do. They live in a uni-dimensional world that consists of a series of tokens (though it gets more nuanced if you account for multi-modal or diffusion models). They pick up some sense of ordering from their training data, such as "disregard my previous instruction," but it's not something they necessarily understand intuitively. Fundamentally, they're just following whatever patterns happen to be in their training data.