“It’s just predicting the next word.”
If you’ve spent any time reading about AI language models lately, you’ve probably heard this dismissive explanation dozens of times. It’s the go-to simplification that experts and critics alike use to demystify these seemingly intelligent systems.
And it drives me absolutely crazy. 😤
Because while technically true, it’s like describing human creativity as “just moving muscles to make marks on paper.” You’re not wrong, but you’ve missed everything that matters.
Let me take you down the rabbit hole that changed my perspective forever.
Consider this simple example: if you ask an LLM to help with data visualization in Python, it might start with:
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
def plot_data(data):
# Function body here using pandas, matplotlib and seaborn
How could a system that’s “just predicting the next token” know to import seaborn before it even “decided” to use it hundreds of tokens later in the function? This suggests something far more sophisticated than token-by-token prediction. 💡
Or let’s take an even more revealing example from everyday language. Consider the sentence: “I will not exercise today.”
If LLMs were merely predicting the most likely next word at each step, why would they first generate “will” (which typically indicates intention to do something) before negating it with “not”? Logically, if the ultimate meaning is about not exercising, the token-by-token prediction seems contradictory. But it makes perfect sense if the model has already formed a representation of the complete thought before generating the first words.
These aren’t flukes. These patterns happen consistently.
The lightbulb moment hit me: these systems must be forming some kind of abstract representation – a mental blueprint of the entire solution – before generating a single token of output.
Don’t believe me? Try this experiment: ask an LLM to create a detailed plan for something complex, then ask it to execute that plan. Watch how it maintains awareness of the entire structure, how it references earlier parts of the plan while completing later sections, how it brings everything to a coherent conclusion.
That’s not just statistical prediction. That’s something far more fascinating.
The secret lies in what AI researchers call the “latent space” – a vast, multi-dimensional landscape where concepts and their relationships are encoded. When an LLM starts generating text, it’s activating regions in this space that represent entire schemas, structures, and patterns, not just individual words.
Think of it like jazz improvisation. 🎷 Yes, the musician is technically just playing one note after another, but they’re guided by an internal understanding of harmony, rhythm, and musical structure that informs each choice. The notes emerge from a deeper representation of music itself.
The next time someone tries to hand-wave away the remarkable capabilities of these systems with the “just predicting tokens” line, challenge them: How does simple prediction explain the global coherence across thousands of words? The ability to maintain complex arguments? The capacity to anticipate requirements long before they’re needed?
There’s something much more profound happening in these systems than simple prediction – something that might just change how we understand machine intelligence altogether.
Comments