>Asking a token prediction model to do math is like asking a human to do math without doing the math. What's 9 times 9? I can tell you it's 81 from sheer memorization. I can probably invoke 9 x 9 + 1 = 82 without needing to do any calculation either. But if you ask me 32 * 64, that's very difficult to do without doing calculations. Implicitly doing math is not sensible.
It's not about memorization. It's trivial to test on instances that would not appear in training and see GPT-4 be better than a human who would attempt the problem without a tool or pad.
The biggest problem with LLM arithmetic is tokenization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02989
Other than that, the algorithms it uses for arithmetic will continue to converge during training until it is correct.
Humans doing things "without a pad" is not the same thing as doing mental math vs. trying to intuit an answer.
Token predictions will not converge on correct arithmetic algorithms.
>What's 9 times 9? I can tell you it's 81 from sheer memorization. I can probably invoke 9 x 9 + 1 = 82 without needing to do any calculation
Performing math how you suggest is little more than memorization except you've just memorized a different chain in the process.
>That is a close equivalent to trying to do with math token prediction.
This isn't going to become true no matter how much you repeat it. You've consistently made assertions that are trivially proven false.
>Token predictions will not converge on correct arithmetic algorithms.
Yes it will. It literally will. This isn't some debate. This is something that has been researched.
https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/N6WM6hs7RQMKDhYjB/a-mec...
You think you have an understanding of Language Models and token prediction. Unfortunately you don't.
