Published on

Large Language Models: Why They Matter

Authors
  • avatar
    Name
    Antonio Castaldo
    Twitter

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently made headlines, impressing people with their ability to understand and generate text. From writing articles to answering questions, they seem almost magical. But how do these models actually work, and what makes them so powerful? In this blog post, I want to break down LLMs in a way that makes their inner workings more accessible. Let's explore what LLMs are, how they generate text, and some of the challenges they face.

The Transformer Architecture and Training Process

LLMs are sophisticated systems built on a machine learning architecture called Transformers (Vaswani et al., 2017). Simply put, Transformers are designed to understand and generate text by learning from vast amounts of unlabeled data. The magic lies in their ability to understand the sequence and context of words, allowing them to produce coherent, human-like responses.

LLMs learn to understand language through a process called training. This involves feeding the model large amounts of text and fine-tuning its internal parameters to minimize errors. Essentially, the model gets better at predicting what comes next in a sequence of words, refining itself through countless iterations. At the core of LLMs is a process called next token prediction. Tokens are units of text that LLMs work with, which can be words, subwords, or even single characters. When you provide input to an LLM, it splits the text into tokens and then predicts the most likely next token based on the context it has learned. This process continues, token by token, to generate meaningful text.

To understand text, LLMs need to break it down into components they can work with. This is done through tokenization. One common method is Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE), which strikes a balance between representing frequent and rare words (Sennrich et al., 2015). Once the text is tokenized, each token is turned into a numerical representation known as an embedding. These embeddings capture the semantic meaning of tokens, helping the model understand relationships between words.

Generating Text and In-Context Learning

Most LLMs are autoregressive, meaning they generate text one token at a time, always looking back at what they have produced so far. To decide which token comes next, several methods are used, such as greedy decoding (picking the token with the highest probability), random sampling (selecting tokens based on their probabilities), and beam search with temperature sampling (considering multiple sequences and adding controlled randomness) (Ficler & Goldberg, 2017).

One of the more fascinating aspects of LLMs is in-context learning, introduced by Brown et al. (2020). Because LLMs work in an autoregressive way, they can learn to perform tasks by observing examples in their input context. This means they can adapt on-the-fly without needing explicit retraining. This allows for zero-shot prompting (asking the LLM to perform a task with no examples) and few-shot prompting (providing a few examples to guide the model).

While LLMs have shown incredible abilities, they are not without limitations. One major challenge is their lack of true understanding. LLMs generate text based on patterns learned from data, but they do not understand language in the way humans do. They do not have beliefs, intentions, or emotions—they simply predict what comes next based on probabilities. This makes them prone to generating plausible-sounding but incorrect or misleading information. It is crucial to always verify the outputs of an LLM, especially when accuracy is essential.

Another significant aspect of LLMs is their scalability. Training LLMs requires massive computational resources and large amounts of data. As models become larger, they generally become more capable, as observed in scaling laws. However, this also means that the environmental impact and cost of training these models are substantial. Researchers are actively exploring ways to make LLMs more efficient, both in terms of computation and energy usage, to ensure that their benefits outweigh their costs.

Ethical Considerations and Challenges

Ethical considerations are also paramount when discussing LLMs. These models can unintentionally perpetuate harmful stereotypes or biases present in their training data. Ensuring that LLMs are used responsibly involves not only improving the quality of training data but also implementing systems for human oversight. Techniques like fine-tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) are being used to mitigate biases and align LLMs more closely with human values.

LLMs are only as good as the data they are trained on, which means data quality is critical. Studies like Bender et al. (2021) have emphasized that LLMs can inherit biases from their training data, leading to problematic outputs if the model isn't properly curated and monitored. A striking example of the risks associated with AI is Microsoft's Tay chatbot, launched in 2016. Within less than 24 hours, Tay began generating toxic content due to influence from biased and harmful user interactions (Wolf et al., 2017). This incident is a reminder of the importance of careful data curation and ethical considerations in model deployment.

Large Language Models are a powerful technology that holds great promise for the future. They have impressive capabilities, but they also come with challenges and responsibilities. Understanding how LLMs work is the first step towards using them responsibly and unlocking their potential for good. The key lies in balancing innovation with ethical practices, ensuring that these models serve humanity in the best possible way. I'd love to hear your thoughts on LLMs! Are there specific aspects you're curious about or areas where you'd like me to dive deeper? Let me know in the comments or reach out directly!


References

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., … Amodei, D. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 1877–1901.
Ficler, J., & Goldberg, Y. (2017). Controlling Linguistic Style Aspects in Neural Language Generation. Proceedings of the Workshop on Stylistic Variation. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w17-4912
Sennrich, R., Haddow, B., & Birch, A. (2015). Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1508.07909
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is All you Need. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, & R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 30). Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper.pdf
Wolf, M. J., Miller, K. W., & Grodzinsky, F. S. (2017). Why We Should Have Seen That Coming: Comments on Microsoft’s Tay “Experiment,” and Wider Implications. The ORBIT Journal, 1(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.29297/orbit.v1i2.49