alt Hacker News> Calling the second system a “next-move predictor” would be strange. It is not trying to predict what move appeared next in a dataset. It is trying to choose a move that wins.
i dont understand the distinction here. does working backwards from a set of win states instead of working forwards from the current state somehow change whether it’s a prediction or not?
Replies
Veedrac • yesterday at 7:11 PM
The distinction is that it's not 'predicting the next token'. Instead it's _determining_ the next token based on a prediction of its reward signal.
➕ show 2 replies
danielmarkbruce • yesterday at 7:54 PM
The word "predict" has a meaning. I don't "predict" my next move in chess. I might predict what someone elses first move is.
➕ show 3 replies
In the article I made 3 claims, and I agree it was a bit clumsy.
1st I say that "working forwards" in the sense of outputting one token at a time could be some form of prediction, I don't argue against that. This is what LLMs do at inference time.
2nd I say that to me what really constitutes a prediction is the pre-training. Here it's the classic setting for the word prediction in ML. The model outputs a prediction of the ground truth label: the next token.
3rd I argue that in RL there is no ground truth next token, so prediction doesn't apply here anymore.
Back to your question then: you're asking points 3 and 1 are different. Working backwards from a set of win states is basically what RL does in training. Working forward from the current state is what inference does. To me there is a distinction worth thinking about. First between the mechanism at inference time and at train time. Then between what happens in pre-training vs. RL post training.