Fun play on words. But yes, LLMs are Large Language Models, not Large World Models. This matters because (1) the world cannot be modeled anywhere close to completely with language alone, and (2) language only somewhat models the world (much in language is convention, wrong, or not concerned with modeling the world, but other concerns like persuasion, causing emotions, or fantasy / imagination).

It is somewhat complicated by the fact LLMs (and VLMs) are also trained in some cases on more than simple language found on the internet (e.g. code, math, images / videos), but the same insight remains true. The interesting question is to just see how far we can get with (2) anyway.

Large Language Models is a misnomer- these things were originally trained to reproduce language, but they went far beyond that. The fact that they're trained on language (if that's even still the case) is irrelevant- it's like claiming that student trained on quizzes and exercise books are only able to solve quizzes and exercises.

1. LLMs are transformers, and transformers are next state predictors. LLMs are not Language models (in the sense you are trying to imply) because even when training is restricted to only text, text is much more than language.

2. People need to let go of this strange and erroneous idea that humans somehow have this privileged access to the 'real world'. You don't. You run on a heavily filtered, tiny slice of reality. You think you understand electro-magnetism ? Tell that to the birds that innately navigate by sensing the earth's magnetic field. To them, your brain only somewhat models the real world, and evidently quite incompletely. You'll never truly understand electro-magnetism, they might say.

LLMs are language models, something being a transformer or next-state predictor does not make it a language model. You can also have e.g. convolutional language models or LSTM-based language models. This is a basic point that anyone with any proper understanding of these models would know.

Even if you disagree with these semantics, the major LLMs today are primarily trained on natural language. But, yes, as I said in another comment on this thread, it isn't that simple, because LLMs today are trained on tokens from tokenizers, and these tokenizers are trained on text that includes e.g. natural language, mathematical symbolism, and code.

Yes, humans have incredibly limited access to the real world. But they experience and model this world with far more tools and machinery than language. Sometimes, in certain cases, they attempt to messily translate this messy, multimodal understanding into tokens, and then make those tokens available on the internet.

An LLM (in the sense everyone means it, which, again, is largely a natural language model, but certainly just a tokenized text model) has access only to these messy tokens, so, yes, far less capacity than humanity collectively. And though the LLM can integrate knowledge from a massive amount of tokens from a huge amount of humans, even a single human has more different kinds of sensory information and modality-specific knowledge than the LLM. So humans DO have more privileged access to the real world than LLMs (even though we can barely access a slice of reality at all).

A language model in computer science is a model that predicts the probability of a sentence or a word given a sentence. This definition predates LLMs.

> 2. People need to let go of this strange and erroneous idea that humans somehow have this privileged access to 'the real world'. You don't.

You are denouncing a claim that the comment you're replying to did not make.

They made it implicitly, otherwise this:

>(2) language only somewhat models the world

is completely irrelevant.

Everyone is only 'somewhat modeling' the world. Humans, Animals, and LLMs.

Completely relevant, because LLMs only "somewhat model" humans' "somewhat modeling" of the world...

Westerners are trying so hard to prove that there is nothing special about humans.

Not sure about that, I'd more say the Western reductionism here is the assumption that all thinking / modeling is primarily linguistic and conscious. This article is NOT clearly falling into this trap.

A more "Eastern" perspective might recognize that much deep knowledge cannot be encoded linguistically ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao", etc.), and there is more broad recognition of the importance of unconscious processes and change (or at least more skepticism of the conscious mind). Freud was the first real major challenge to some of this stuff in the West, but nowadays it is more common than not for people to dismiss the idea that unconscious stuff might be far more important than the small amount of things we happen to notice in the conscious mind.

The (obviously false) assumptions about the importance of conscious linguistic modeling are what lead to people say (obviously false) things like "How do you know your thinking isn't actually just like LLM reasoning?".

Or the opposite, that humans are somehow super special and not as simple as a prediction feedback loop with randomizations.

How do you manage to get that from the article?

another "noahpinion"

Llame Word Models.

My Sunday morning speculation is that LLMs, and sufficiently complex neural nets in general, are a kind of Frankenstein phenomenon, they are heavily statistical, yet also partly, subtly doing novel computational and cognitive-like processes (such as world models). To dismiss either aspect is a false binary; the scientific question is distinguishing which part of an LLM is which, which by our current level of scientific understanding is virtually like trying to ask when is an electron a wave or a particle.

editor here! all questions welcome - this is a topic i've been pursuing in the podcast for much of the past year... links inside.

I found it to be an interesting angle but thought it was odd that a key point is is "LLMs dominate chess-like domains" while LLMs are not great at chess https://dev.to/maximsaplin/can-llms-play-chess-ive-tested-13...

Large embedding model

Are people really using AI just to write a slack message??

Also, Priya is in the same "world" as everyone else. They have the context that the new person is 3 weeks in and must probably need some help because they're new, are actually reaching out, and impressions matter, even if they said "not urgent". "Not urgent" seldom is taken at face value. It doesn't necessarily mean it's urgent, but it means "I need help, but I'm being polite".

People are pretending AIs are their boyfriends & girlfriends. Slack messages are the least bizarre use case.

Not that far off from all the tech CEOs who have projected they're one step away from giving us Star Trek TNG, they just need all the money and privilege with no accountability to make it happen

DevOps engineers who acted like the memes changed everything! The cloud will save us!

Until recently the US was quite religious; 80%+ around 2000 down to 60%s now. Longtermism dogma of one kind or another rules those brains; endless growth in economics, longtermism. Those ideal are baked into biochemical loops regardless of the semantics the body may express them in.

Unfortunately for all the disciples time is not linear. No center to the universe means no single epoch to measure from. Humans have different birthdays and are influenced by information along different timelines.

A whole lot of brains are struggling with the realization they were bought into a meme and physics never really cared about their goals. The next generation isn't going to just pick up the meme-baton validate the elders dogma.

The next generation is steeped in the elder's propaganda since birth, through YouTube and TikTok. There's only the small in–between generation who grew up learning computers that hadn't been enshittified yet.

That's self selecting gibberish.

Computing has nothing to do with the machine.

The first application of the term "computer" was humans doing math with an abacus and slide ruler.

Turing machines and bits are not the only viable model. That little in-between generation only knows a tiny bit about "computing" using machines IBM and Apple, Intel, etc, propagandized them into buying. All computing must fit our model machine!

Different semantics but same idea as my point about DevOps.

So you think that enough of the complexity of the universe we live in is faithfully represented in the products of language and culture?

People won’t even admit their sexual desires to themselves and yet they keep shaping the world. Can ChatGPT access that information somehow?

The amount of faith a person has in LLMs getting us to e.g. AGI is a good implicit test of how much a person (incorrectly) thinks most thinking is linguistic (and to some degree, conscious).

Or at least, this is the case if we mean LLM in the classic sense, where the "language" in the middle L refers to natural language. Also note GP carefully mentioned the importance of multimodality, which, if you include e.g. images, audio, and video in this, starts to look like much closer to the majority of the same kinds of inputs humans learn from. LLMs can't go too far, for sure, but VLMs could conceivably go much, much farther.

It's also important to handle cases where the word patterns (or token patterns, rather) have a negative correlation with the patterns in reality. There are some domains where the majority of content on the internet is actually just wrong, or where different approaches lead to contradictory conclusions.

E.g. syllogistic arguments based on linguistic semantics can lead you deeply astray if you those arguments don't properly measure and quantify at each step.

I ran into this in a somewhat trivial case recently, trying to get ChatGPT to tell me if washing mushrooms ever really actually matters practically in cooking (anyone who cooks and has tested knows, in fact, a quick wash has basically no impact ever for any conceivable cooking method, except if you wash e.g. after cutting and are immediately serving them raw).

Until I forced it to cite respectable sources, it just repeated the usual (false) advice about not washing (i.e. most of the training data is wrong and repeats a myth), and it even gave absolute nonsense arguments about water percentages and thermal energy required for evaporating even small amounts of surface water as pushback (i.e. using theory that just isn't relevant when you actually properly quantify). It also made up stuff about surface moisture interfering with breading (when all competent breading has a dredging step that actually won't work if the surface is bone dry anyway...), and only after a lot of prompts and demands to only make claims supported by reputable sources, did it finally find McGee's and Kenji Lopez's actual empirical tests showing that it just doesn't matter practically.

So because the training data is utterly polluted for cooking, and since it has no ACTUAL understanding or model of how things in cooking actually work, and since physics and chemistry are actually not very useful when it comes to the messy reality of cooking, LLMs really fail quite horribly at producing useful info for cooking.