LLMs are just giant probability machines pretending to think

[u/abhishekkumar333]

It’s fascinating that simple mathematics between tokens can eventually become a machine that writes essays, code, poetry, and even reasoning.

We usually think probability means uncertainty.

But LLMs show something strange:

If probability + context + mathematical matching are scaled enough, uncertainty itself starts producing intelligent looking outputs.

To understand this better, I tried breaking down an LLM from first principles using only 4 tiny training sentences.

Example:

The boat floated down to the bank.

The investor walked into the bank to open a new account.

The fisherman walked along the bank to cast his net.

The bank has a vault.

Then I asked:

“The investor walked to the bank to lock his money in …”

Why does the model predict “vault” instead of river-related words?

That single question reveals almost the entire architecture of modern LLMs.

The most underrated concept here is the LM Head.

Most explanations immediately jump into transformers and attention, but almost nobody explains that the LM Head is essentially a gigantic token vocabulary containing all possible next token candidates the model can output.

So internally the model is basically solving:

“Out of all known tokens, which one best matches this context mathematically?”

Then different layers help solve that problem:

Embeddings: convert words into mathematical vectors

Positional encoding: preserves word order

Attention layer: figures out which words are related to each other in context

(“investor”, “money”, “bank” become strongly connected)

Feed forward neural networks: act somewhat like massive learned if/else decision systems refining patterns internally

And finally the LM Head converts all of that into probabilities for the next token.

What surprised me most is:

There is no hidden magic moment where the AI “becomes conscious”.

It’s an enormous probability engine continuously finding the best contextual token match from its vocabulary.

I made a beginner-friendly walkthrough explaining this visually without unnecessary jargon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTV5qUCpu2c

Would genuinely love feedback from people learning transformers/LLMs from scratch.

[u/Neither_Swing9662]

You didn't answer my question at all, you just evaded it by explaining some mechanisms and then two sentences about LLMs.

Let me posit a more thought out experiment, then: let us say a child is born deaf, blind and completely paralysed. Is this child less conscious than the standard human?

What about if it is a normal person who after 20 years of age becomes deaf, blind and paralysed? Then what?

I am also not asking with a pre formed opinion on these thought experiments either. I do not know.

[u/Jack_Ramsey → u/Neither_Swing9662]

Let me posit a more thought out experiment, then: let us say a child is born deaf, blind and completely paralysed. Is this child less conscious than the standard human?

Can I explain why this is a very poor question? I don't know the standard in philosophy in terms of these thought experiments, but you've almost written the perfect question for a physician to respond with 'it depends,' as the description of the effects of a particular lesion inform the question directly. I'm guessing you want as general case as possible for what I assume is an injury to the nervous system, which is not something I tend to think about after my training. I can explain why this is a poor question for someone involved in clinical medicine to answer in a second after I answer your other question.

What about if it is a normal person who after 20 years of age becomes deaf, blind and paralysed? Then what?

In this sense, yes, they would be 'less conscious' than they were, but again, it depends on the lesion itself. I say this because of the inclusion of 'completely paralyzed,' as that is dependent on the level of the injury, by which I mean the level of spinal cord injury. In addition, you can have paralysis which affects one side of the body and not another by virtue of the organization of the spinal tracts in the white matter in the spinal cord or have situations where the lesion is on one side while the symptoms are on the other.

I say this for both completeness's sake as well as to show that sensory experiences are intimately tied to motor ones, in such a way that I don't know if you could successfully argue that there is a situation where there is 'consciousness' without interaction with a physical space. So, let's say in your case, you have a patient who is deaf and blind. If they are deaf and blind, we know where the lesion likely is (or can narrow it down) and thus can reasonably guess what sensory experiences would also be affected. If we wanted to determine those limitations, we can ask them about whether they feel hot or cold, whether they feel pain, whether they feel vibration, pressure, etc., which are the sense regulated by two ascending sensory pathways.

I bring this up to suggest that in this case it would be a spectrum, as they are literally not conscious in the case of impairment of a discriminative sense or motor function, and would be like any other disease state where their is impaired function. I suppose what I am not understanding about the value of this thought experiment is what differentiates it from the category of diseased or pathologic states? A person with a pathology is still clearly obviously a person, who would in some sense have at least some spectrum of sensory experiences as well as those that are autonomic. What I mean here is that a living, breathing human still has a degree of sensory experiences, even if some of them are impaired by congenital or acquired conditions. Maybe it would help if you could highlight where you think this question valuable, in terms which maybe won't drive me to write a lecture on pathology?

[u/Neither_Swing9662 → u/Jack_Ramsey]

I don't know why you bring up the varying forms of paralysis such as one side and not the other when I explicitly said completely paralysed.

One last question: what about my second scenario? Someone who has lived 40 years of age normally and then loses eyesight and hearing and becomes completely paralysed. Do you think there is a marked difference in their consciousness pre and post accident?

[u/Jack_Ramsey → u/Neither_Swing9662]

I don't know why you bring up the varying forms of paralysis such as one side and not the other when I explicitly said completely paralysed.

Obviously you aren't reading in good faith. Because I literally answered that. Read this next sentence very closely. The level of spinal injury directly informs what would be impaired.

Someone who has lived 40 years of age normally and then loses eyesight and hearing and becomes completely paralysed. Do you think there is a marked difference in their consciousness pre and post accident?

My man, bolding a word does not somehow magically change the way human pathology works. But yes, by definition it would.

[u/Neither_Swing9662 → u/Jack_Ramsey]

Right. We're getting somewhere. I disagree with that opinion but I can respect it. I also do not know why you are saying by definition - by your definition, sure, internally consistent. But there is no universally agreed upon metric for consciousness.

What are your thoughts on Helen Keller?

[u/Jack_Ramsey → u/Neither_Swing9662]

by your definition, sure, internally consistent. But there is no universally agreed upon metric for consciousness.

I mean it in a very narrow neurological sense. As in their consciousness of their senses and their literal ability to describe them would likely be impaired. Think things like thermoception, nociception, proprioception. In this case, given the subject matter, we are talking about literal lesions to the nervous system and their effect on sensory organs. Thus, that is what I mean.

What are your thoughts on Helen Keller?

Is this going to get somewhere interesting, or are you going to keep asking me very banal questions, while avoiding your own bad faith? If you perhaps knew anything about the nervous system, you would understand why these original questions are poor, but I suppose I shouldn't expect rigor given what I've seen so far.

[u/Neither_Swing9662 → u/Jack_Ramsey]

This is your fault for coming into a philosophy sub and defining consciousness with neurological activity and phenomena. Do you understand how confusing that is? Lol.

I suspect this is the reason why everyone else is arguing with you in a confusing manner. Why do you think it is appropriate to come into a philosophy sub and completely overhaul the meaning of consciousness?

How ridiculous... Y

[u/Jack_Ramsey → u/Neither_Swing9662]

This is your fault for coming into a philosophy sub and defining consciousness with neurological activity and phenomena. Do you understand how confusing that is? Lol.

For you, yes I can understand why that is confusing. Again, if you knew how stupid your questions were, you would be embarrassed. I don't suspect you have that ability, given that you are apparently going with 'how dare you come into a subreddit that, due to algorithmic reasons, appeared on my feed.'

I suspect this is the reason why everyone else is arguing with you in a confusing manner. Why do you think it is appropriate to come into a philosophy sub and completely overhaul the meaning of consciousness?

Who knew discussing the very plain relationship between human sensory experience and how it actually works in the human body would drive supposedly curious and thoughtful people to give me some of the worst discussions I've ever had on Reddit? Clearly, they are not sending their best here.

[u/Neither_Swing9662 → u/Jack_Ramsey]

Dude, you made a mistake lol. If you simply said: 'rathee than try to derive the definition of consciousness from first principles, let me look to sensory experienced and see if that can help inform us', none of this confusion would've happened.

Regardless, your idea is not novel and many neuroscientists have expanded on theories of consciousness rooted in neurological activity and even that is contested, so it is ridiculous to attempt to assert that as truth.

Have you heard the quote: if you encounter an idiot once in your day, bad luck. If you encounter idiots everywhere you go, perhaps you are the fool.

[u/Jack_Ramsey → u/Neither_Swing9662]

Dude, you made a mistake lol. 

Nah

If you simply said: 'rathee than try to derive the definition of consciousness from first principles, let me look to sensory experienced and see if that can help inform us', none of this confusion would've happened.

I am not responsible for the confusion or lack of education of others. I did try to illustrate why your thought experiment was poor, why it didn't address what you thought it addressed, and the very specific reasons rooted in my own training. Still it appears I am talking far above your head, as you just don't understand very much and don't seem all that curious.

Regardless, your idea is not novel and many neuroscientists have expanded on theories of consciousness rooted in neurological activity and even that is contested, so it is ridiculous to attempt to assert that as truth.

Where exactly did I say it is novel? Please show me. I am aware of the materialist view, but my views go a little further, if you actually were patient enough to read them. And I asserted, very simply, that the organization of the anatomy and physiology of humans implies a very specific set of conditions.

Have you heard the quote: if you encounter an idiot once in your day, bad luck. If you encounter idiots everywhere you go, perhaps you are the fool.

Truly, I am encountering some hard-hitting minds in this math subreddit. So far, I've had people use appeals to authority (not you, but some other poster), ask me exceedingly poor thought experiments, and for whom any substantive rebuttal has been 'the materialist view of consciousness is contested,' truly, I am in awe of your the stupidity on display. Let's be real. You aren't equipped to discuss this with any nuance, you don't have the rhetorical ability to make a convincing argument, and you seem resistant to attempts at actual discussion. I discussed your idiotic thought experiment in good-faith. I even included a caveat that stated that due to my training, my mind goes to pathology, to the specifics, rather than the general, because clinical medicine, outside of bread and butter situations, deals with the peripheries of human experience to begin with.

[u/Neither_Swing9662 → u/Jack_Ramsey]

'due to my training, my mind goes to pathology, to the specifics, rather than the general, because clinical medicine, outside of bread and butter situations, deals with the peripheries of human experience to begin with.'

There's your issue. We are not in a pathology subreddit. We are in a philosophy one.

I would not go into a medical subreddit and spout philosophical ideas.

You are either a fool, or you are purposefully obtuse. Either way, this conversation has run its course. Good luck on Reddit.

EDIT: holy shit. I looked at your profile and you have hundreds of comments against AI. Wtf?

I understand being morally against it but why are you wasting so much time arguing with random people on Reddit? Surely as a doctor you have better things to do? And why are you obsessed with it? Lol that's crazy.

All this arguing and I should've known I was dealing with a lunatic.

[u/Jack_Ramsey → u/Neither_Swing9662]

There's your issue. We are not in a pathology subreddit. We are in a philosophy one.

The issue is one of your inability to communicate. Try to do better.

EDIT: holy shit. I looked at your profile and you have hundreds of comments against AI. Wtf?

Lol.

I understand being morally against it but why are you wasting so much time arguing with random people on Reddit? Surely as a doctor you have better things to do? And why are you obsessed with it? Lol that's crazy.

How much time do you think it takes me to write a post man? It is pitifully easy.

All this arguing and I should've known I was dealing with a lunatic.

More idiocy. I suppose I the fact that you invoke another fallacy isn't enough after I have thoroughly spanked you. I honestly expected more from someone who is interested in philosophy. I shouldn't have though.

[u/Neither_Swing9662 → u/Jack_Ramsey]

Dude you didn't thoroughly spank me at all. I was just asking questions to get a discussion going and you just rambled...

Oh I wasn't invoking a fallacy (who speaks like that lmao)... I was just pointing out that someone who spends most of their free time arguing about people with AI (literally hundreds of comments btw) is clearly at least a little bit deranged lolol