Talk:Large language model

This is unclear

Moving beyond n-gram models, researchers started in 2000 to use neural networks to "learn" language models

Does this really mean "learn about" or perhaps "teach".

Its important: the reader cannot easily understand what's actually meant here. ~2026-24004-11 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right that there was an issue with this sentence, thanks for reporting. I replaced it with "to use neural networks as language models." Alenoach (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"TrueFoundry" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TrueFoundry has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 20 § TrueFoundry until a consensus is reached. Isla🏳️‍⚧ 20:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Finetuning section sentence citation mismatch

Current text: Since humans typically prefer truthful, helpful and harmless answers, RLHF favors such answers.

Citation extract: In fact, ChatGPT’s breakthrough was only possible because the model has been taught to align with human values. An aligned model delivers responses that are helpful (the question is answered in an appropriate manner), honest (the answer can be trusted), and harmless (the answer is not biased nor toxic).

This has been possible because OpenAI incorporated a large volume of human feedback into AI models to reinforce good behaviors.

Problem: We do not know how the humans were instructed to perform their task; reviewers could have been asked to score/correct based on values chosen by OpenAI. We do not know whether said humans are a representative sample of "humans" generally. We do not know whether the choice/identification of alignment values emerged naturally from an unbiased RHLF process or came about during another stage of training altogether The source text does not specify whether the humans are the source of the 3 values or a necessary enabler to imbue the model with such values

In short: To say that a model has been trained by humans to align to 3 values is not the same as those 3 values being preferred by "humans". To illustrate by analogy: A scientist can train a mouse to associate pushing a pedal with a treat but that does not tell us anything about the scientist's motives or preferences.

Proposal: cut the sentence entirely.

~2026-38376-22 (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I've cute the sentence pending further discussion. In simple terms, the source for these claims needs to be stronger, and would have to be summarized neutrally. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Contemporary AI practitioners generally agree that present-day large language models do not exhibit sentience

May or may not be true, but the cited article actually says:

Li, Fei-Fei; Etchemendy, John (22 May 2024). "No, Today's AI Isn't Sentient. Here's How We Know". Time. Retrieved 23 July 2026. Over the past months, both of us have had robust debates and conversations with many colleagues in the field of AI, including some deep one-on-one conversations with some of the most prominent and pioneering AI scientists. The topic of whether AI has achieved sentience has been a prominent one. A small number of them believe strongly that it has.

IE, you can argue as that the citation would support "several contemporary AI practitioners agree that [they] DO exhibit sentience" .. the opposite direction! Long story short: Cite does not support the sentence.

In general, people like Chalmers (already cited), Turing (not yet cited - "too meaningless to deserve discussion" ), Dijkstra (not yet cited - "whether submarines can swim") , and several of the already cited sources all argue that the concept is under-determined and/or ill-posed and thus could not be settled in their time, and the situation hasn't improved since. :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The sentence "Contemporary AI practitioners generally agree that present-day large language models do not exhibit sentience" is a little overstated, there isn't that much consensus (though phrasing it the opposite way would be less justified because the belief that some current LLMs are sentient is less mainstream than the belief that current LLMs aren't sentient). Alenoach (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-72297-9. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)