Stop Thinking of LLMs as Next-Token Predictors

Re:Stop Thinking of LLMs as Next-Token Predictors by Planktonne on Friday September 04, 2026 @06:47PM (#49571099)

It's a short article; you could read it. One example to get you started is the very first sentence:

> Strictly speaking, the statement “LLMs are next-token predictors” isn’t wrong, but it’s incomplete.

The article is about how 'next-token predictor' is the wrong mental model; it opens with the admission that it is not the wrong mental model.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop Thinking of LLMs as Next-Token Predictors by zahlman on Friday September 04, 2026 @07:06PM (#49571238)

I did read it. People are allowed to disagree with your conclusions. Comment guidelines ask us all not to make such accusations.

To say that a statement is incomplete, but not strictly speaking wrong, is perfectly compatible with describing it informally as "wrong" in the sense used in the title (i.e.: "not the most appropriate possibility").

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Stop Thinking of LLMs as Next-Token Predictors by Planktonne on Friday September 04, 2026 @07:13PM (#49571283)

To informally describe something as wrong in an article focused on how it's wrong to informally describe something is incoherent.

There's a certain irony in pointing me towards the guidelines on the grounds that I have limited patience with your comments that violate them in various ways. I'm not sure that this is a productive discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]