There is a persistent belief in the ‘AI’ community that large language models (LLMs) have the ability to learn and self-improve by tweaking the weights in their vector space. Although there’s scant evidence that tweaking a probability vector space is anything like the learning process in biological brains, we nevertheless get sold the idea that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is just around the corner if we do just enough tweaking.
Instead of emerging super intelligence, the most likely outcome is what is called model collapse, with a recent paper by [Hector Zenil] going over the details on why self-training/learning in LLMs and similar systems is a fool’s errand. For those who just want the brief summary with all the memes, [Metin] wrote a blog post covering the basics.
In the end an LLM as well as a diffusion model (DM) is a statistical model of input data using which a statistically likely output can be generated (inferred) based on an input query. It follows intuitively that by using said output to adjust the model with, the model will over time converge on a kind of statistical singularity rather than some ‘AI singularity’ event. This is also why these models need to be constantly trained with external, human-generated data in order to prevent such a collapse.
In the paper by [Hector] a mathematical model is created to demonstrate that an LLM, DM or similar statistical model undergoes degenerative dynamics whenever said external input is reduced. Although in the paper a mechanism is suggested to counter the entropy decay within the model, the ultimate point is that a statistical model cannot improve itself without continuous external anchoring.
The idea of LLMs being at all intelligent in any sense has been a contentious one, with the concept of language models being equated with ‘AI’ dating back to the 20th century, including as fun home computer projects. Much of the problem probably lies in humans projecting intelligent behavior onto these statistical models, turning LLMs into ‘counterfeit humans’, not helped by how closely generated text can resemble something written by a human, even if completely confabulated.
Thanks to [deshipu] for the tip.
