> The task we study is linebreaking in fixed-width text.
I wonder why they focused specifically on a task that is already solved algorithmically. The paper does not seem to address this, and the references do not include any mentions of non-LLM approaches to the line-breaking problem.
There's also a lot of analogising of this to visual/spatial reasoning, even to the point of talking about "visual illusions", when its clearly a counting task as the title says.
It makes it tedious to figure out what they actually did (which sounds interesting) when it's couched in such terms and presented in such an LLMified style.
Utter disrespect for using the term "biology" relating to LLM. No one would call the analysis of a mechanical engine "car biology".
It's an artificial system, call it system analysis.
> The task we study is linebreaking in fixed-width text.
I wonder why they focused specifically on a task that is already solved algorithmically. The paper does not seem to address this, and the references do not include any mentions of non-LLM approaches to the line-breaking problem.
They study it because it already has a known solution.
The point is to see how LLMs implement algorithms internally, starting with this simple easily understood algorithm.
That makes sense; however it does not seem like they check the LLM outputs against the known solution. Maybe I missed that in the article.
There's also a lot of analogising of this to visual/spatial reasoning, even to the point of talking about "visual illusions", when its clearly a counting task as the title says.
It makes it tedious to figure out what they actually did (which sounds interesting) when it's couched in such terms and presented in such an LLMified style.
Utter disrespect for using the term "biology" relating to LLM. No one would call the analysis of a mechanical engine "car biology". It's an artificial system, call it system analysis.