ML is so attractive to young physicists because many physics grads aren't really looking for physics, but for our times' great challenge. My generation still believed LHC was about to give us the secrets of the universe. We then found our own quantum mechanics in ML
attention sinks may be a bias in causal transformers.
as some of you know, i've been writing a long blogpost on attention and its properties as a message-passing operation on graphs. while doing so, i figured i might have found an explanation for which attention sinks may be an
we can go beyond attention.
as some of you know, higher-order attention methods (and the resulting schizodrawings) have been my focus for a while now, and, despite my earlier plans, they ended up being my choice for the second post in the series titled "the graph side of
does it chat? Yes
Is it a GPT? (most likely) yes
also CLAUDE clearly stands for Command Line Ascetic Universial Development Engineer
So your professor is based and your retarded
arxiv.org/abs/2505.22785 is a quite underrated paper imo.
generalizing means your latent trajectories are not collapsing to exactly a (compressed) carbon-copy of the input -> 0-dimensional (single point) manifold in latent space, but instead converging to an "attractor"
every time i think of what a tokenizer is and how a transformer ingests indices and spits them out, i am reminded of how ghastly and unholy deep learning really is, despite how much i love it
LLMs are injective and invertible.
In our new paper, we show that different prompts always map to different embeddings, and this property can be used to recover input tokens from individual embeddings in latent space.
(1/6)