Semanlink - Characterizing Emergent Phenomena in Large Language Models

> **The performance of current days language models are not obtained by language modeling**
>
>    - [Traditional] LMs are not [grounded](tag:grounded_language_learning)
> 
> **3 conceptual steps between GPT-3 and chatGPT: Instructions, code, RLHF.** The last one is, I think, the least interesting despite getting the most attention
>
> Instruction tuning: For example, the human annotators would write something like "please summarize this text", followed by some text they got, followed by a summary they produced of this text. -> Some symbols ("summarize", "translate", "formal") are used in a consistent way together with the concept/task they denote. And they always appear in the beginning of the text. -> the act of producing a summary grounded to the human concept of "summary"
>
> code: programming language code data, and specifically data that contains both natural language instructions or descriptions (in the form of code comments) and the corresponding programming language code. This produced another very direct form of grounding. the human language describes concepts (or intents), which are then realized in the form of the corresponding programs.
>
> "[RL with Human Feedback](tag:reinforcement_learning_from_human_feedback)". This is a fancy way of saying that the model now observes two humans in a conversation, one playing the role of a user, and another playing the role of "the AI", demonstrating how the AI should respond in different situations. This clearly helps the model learn how dialogs work, and how to keep track of information across dialog states (something that is very hard to learn from just "found" data).

2023-01-03 About

[2106.04647] Compacter: Efficient Low-Rank Hypercomplex Adapter Layers

Tags:

2021-09-29 About

How Much Knowledge Can You Pack Into the Parameters of a Language Model?

Tags:

> It has recently been observed that neural language
models trained on unstructured text can
implicitly store and retrieve knowledge using
natural language queries.

indeed, cf. Facebook's paper [Language Models as Knowledge Bases?](/doc/2019/09/_1909_01066_language_models_as)

> In this short paper,
we measure the practical utility of this
approach by fine-tuning pre-trained models to
answer questions without access to any external
context or knowledge.

> we show that a large language
model pre-trained on unstructured text can
attain competitive results on open-domain question
answering benchmarks without any access
to external knowledge

BUT:

>1. state-of-the-art results only with the largest model
which had 11 billion parameters.
>1. “open-book” models
typically provide some indication of what information
they accessed when answering a question
that provides a useful form of interpretability.
In contrast, our model distributes knowledge
in its parameters in an inexplicable way, which
precludes this form of interpretability.
>1. **the maximum-likelihood objective provides no guarantees as to whether
a model will learn a fact or not.**

So, what's the point? To be compared with this [IBM's paper](/doc/2019/09/_1909_04120_span_selection_pre): "a new pre-training task inspired by reading comprehension and an effort to avoid encoding general knowledge in the transformer network itself"

2020-02-11 About