Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Language models are better than humans at next-token prediction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2212.11281 v2 pith:LTKIMPFT submitted 2022-12-21 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords languagemodelshumanspredictionbetterexperimentslikemeasuring
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Current language models are considered to have sub-human capabilities at natural language tasks like question-answering or writing code. However, language models are not trained to perform well at these tasks, they are trained to accurately predict the next token given previous tokes in tokenized text. It is not clear whether language models are better or worse than humans at next token prediction. To try to answer this question, we performed two distinct experiments to directly compare humans and language models on this front: one measuring top-1 accuracy and the other measuring perplexity. In both experiments, we find humans to be consistently \emph{worse} than even relatively small language models like GPT3-Ada at next-token prediction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools