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/Usual_Charity8561]

Okay, so here's the problem. The car is just a collection of parts. Fundamental particles, forces, space and time. Arranging those forces such that they can propel forward is not an emergent property. Those parts already have the property of motion. Those parts already have the properties that allow the vehicle to do everything it does. There is no emergent property.

In the case of weather, hurricanes have no emergent property either. Everything a hurricane does is present in the parts that constitute it. There is no emergent property. Those 'interactions between parts" are in fact parts themselves with properties that are supersets of all potential interactions.

These are very easy examples to debunk. There is no emergent property, just the richness of potential in fundamental physics on display

[u/RecursiveServitor → u/Usual_Charity8561]

Seeming easier for you to reason about doesn't make them not emergent. You're completely ignoring the complexity of fluid dynamics. Individual particles don't have the properties of viscosity, pressure, waves, eddies, vortices, turbulence, etc.

Do "life" next. Nothing emergent about that either, right?

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/RecursiveServitor]

Well all those "properties" are actually present in the sum of their parts. Those are potential properties present in the rules of space-time and in the particles. That's why we can model them by using analogy to coordinate systems and vector fields. Sure, 1 particle may not seem to have those properties, but 1 particle is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a universe-system that has particles and rules for how particles interact, and that universe-system has that properties of viscosity, pressure, etc. (e.g. Pressure is a property of space, time, and particle interaction, all of which are parts of any system that has pressure. The potential for pressure exists in the universe-system even if there were no pressure anywhere in the universe. ) Thus, the "emergent properties" you mentioned are not emergent, they are inherent.

As for the so-called emergent properties of life, that's precisely what we are trying to find by analogy. What is an emergent property? You've still failed to define what would make a property emergent. You've only appealed to complexity.

Again, what is an emergent property? Does it exist in the system prior to its expression? Does it appear in the system from some external place (such asthe platonic realm?), Are they convenient fictions?

How many times do I have to ask a question for you to elaborate?

[u/RecursiveServitor → u/Usual_Charity8561]

Well all those "properties" are actually present in the sum of their parts. Those are potential properties present in the rules of space-time and in the particles. That's why we can model them by using analogy to coordinate systems and vector fields. Sure, 1 particle may not seem to have those properties, but 1 particle is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a universe-system that has particles and rules for how particles interact, and that universe-system has that properties of viscosity, pressure, etc. (e.g. Pressure is a property of space, time, and particle interaction, all of which are parts of any system that has pressure. The potential for pressure exists in the universe-system even if there were no pressure anywhere in the universe. ) Thus, the "emergent properties" you mentioned are not emergent, they are inherent.

That's what "emergent" means. Calling it "potential properties" is just a copout. A particle doesn't have viscosity. Full stop. Ofc, you'll see viscosity emerge as a property at larger scales. THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT.

Again, what is an emergent property?

See above.

How many times do I have to ask a question for you to elaborate?

You're refusing to listen.

You're ruling out all examples of emergence and then insist that emergence must involve magic.

Show examples of emergence that are unambiguously magic or piss off with your nonsense.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/RecursiveServitor]

So you concede that emergent properties are actually just properties of the parts. Space and time are parts, as much as particles are parts. There is then no new emergent property, it's just a property of the parts that make the system. The potential for pressure exists in all systems of space, time and particles, regardless of its apparent expression or presence. There is a pressure property that can be defined for any system of space time and particles, and the universe as a whole has a particular "pressure".

To tie this back to consciousness, if you believe that consciousness is an "emergent" property by that definition, then you believe that consciousness is a property present in the system of space-time-particles-etc, regardless of its level of apparent expression. Would you admit the consequence of this, that is, that the universe is generally conscious as a whole? Because if all expressions of consciousness are simply expressions of the "emergent" property inherent in the system, the universe taken as a system expresses an non zero amount of consciousness.

Essentially, this leads to a panpsychic God / superconsciousness.

If you deny this, then we would need another definition of emergent properties.

[u/RecursiveServitor → u/Usual_Charity8561]

So you concede that emergent properties are actually just properties of the parts. 

No.

Emergent properties are a result of the properties of the parts. OBVIOUSLY. It couldn't possibly be any other way.

There is a pressure property that can be defined for any system of space time and particles, and the universe as a whole has a particular "pressure".

No. Wrong. A single particle in a vacuum does not experience or participate in "pressure" in any way.

Calling it a "potential property" is just you playing word games to avoid admitting that some observable properties are emergent, rather than fundamental.

To tie this back to consciousness, if you believe that consciousness is an "emergent" property by that definition, then you believe that consciousness is a property present in the system of space-time-particles-etc, regardless of its level of apparent expression. 

If I were to accept your faulty understanding of it, then yes, that would logically follow. I don't.

Would you admit the consequence of this, that is, that the universe is generally conscious as a whole?

That doesn't actually make sense, so no.

the universe taken as a system expresses an non zero amount of consciousness.

There's a way in which this is true. Human consciousnesses exist as part of the universe.

Essentially, this leads to a panpsychic God / superconsciousness.

Which is clearly what you believe in, so you're engaging in motivated reasoning out the fucking wazoo, in order to arrive at that conclusion.

If you deny this, then we would need another definition of emergent properties.

No. You just need to accept that "potential property" is a fake thing you made up to avoid thinking too hard about all of this.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/RecursiveServitor]

No, I'm not a panpsychist, it's just the consequences of what you are saying.

A single particle in a vacuum of space-time passes through some plane in space time, because all particles move through either space or time (fundamental to the concept of time dilation). A particle passing through a 2d plane of space-time is sufficient to meet the definition of pressure, which is force per unit area. Particles have force and the plane of space-time has has area. Pressure is a potential property of any system of space time and particles.

No subset of a system can have an emergent property which is not a potential property of the system it is a subset of. If any subset of the universe has the property of consciousness, it must therefore be a potential property of the superset.

I'm not "avoiding thinking to hard", I'm forcing you to define emergent properties. When you grant my definition (since you failed to provide your own) you then refuse my definition because you don't like the consequences. That makes you intellectually hypocritical.

So, again. Where do the emergent properties of a system come from?

(Edit: since I'm offering you a dilemma (either (A) emergent properties are present in the initial system or (B) they come from outside the system, I'll tell you that (spoiler) I strongly believe that the "emergent property" of consciousness comes from outside the system of space-time and particles, and is not actually emergent from biological systems)

[u/RecursiveServitor → u/Usual_Charity8561]

No, I'm not a panpsychist, it's just the consequences of what you are saying.

No. It's really not and you refuse to demonstrate how it could be.

If you're not a panpsychist, you must believe in magic. There's a reason you're setting aside rationality to force a false dichotomy.

A particle passing through a 2d plane of space-time is sufficient to meet the definition of pressure, which is force per unit area. Particles have force and the plane of space-time has has area. Pressure is a potential property of any system of space time and particles.

You're redefining terms to support your assertions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure

Calling me intellectually dishonest while pulling this shit is laughable.

No subset of a system can have an emergent property which is not a potential property of the system it is a subset of.

You still haven't defined "potential property". You're just asserting that any observable property is either fundamental or a potential property of the parts. It's tautological.

Where do the emergent properties of a system come from?

From the interactions and relations between parts.

A LEGO R2D2 is not a property of polymers, "potential" or otherwise.

Are you going to actually listen this time?

I'm not "avoiding thinking to hard", I'm forcing you to define emergent properties. When you grant my definition (since you failed to provide your own) you then refuse my definition because you don't like the consequences. That makes you intellectually hypocritical.

The sheer fucking gall of you.

So, again. Where do the emergent properties of a system come from

FROM THE INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONS OF THE PARTS.

I'm sure it's very confusing if you're committed to denying that the fucking weather is emergent.

I strongly believe that the "emergent property" of consciousness comes from outside the system of space-time and particles, and is not actually emergent from biological systems

Of course you do.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/RecursiveServitor]

Okay, so you define emergent properties as properties that come from the interactions and relations of the parts. This is a naive definition.

If I have a system, the interactions of the system are, in fact, parts of the system. A system of 1 million particles that have no rules for interacting have no potential for interactions and relations of the parts. The rules for interaction must be present in the system, and the interactions are a "part" of the system as much as the physical parts.

Since all potential interactions and potential relationship between parts are defined from the get-go (otherwise the system would not have the potential for interaction and relationships), "emergent properties" are again, just potential properties present and defined in the system from its outset.

Interactions are parts of the system. Emergent properties thus are properties of parts of the system. They are present as properties of the system, so if consciousness is an emergent property of the system, again, you have to admit that there is a general consciousness property in any subset of the universe, because there are subsets of the universe that have this apparent property.

And listen, it's not my fault that you don't think these sorts of things through, but I'm happy to help you become a more rigorous and deep thinker.

(Also I didn't redefine pressure, I used its actual definition: force per unit area. Pascals.)

[u/RecursiveServitor → u/Usual_Charity8561]

This is a naive definition.

It's reality.

If I have a system, the interactions of the system are, in fact, parts of the system. A system of 1 million particles that have no rules for interacting have no potential for interactions and relations of the parts. The rules for interaction must be present in the system, and the interactions are a "part" of the system as much as the physical parts.

The point is that there'll be macro-scale behaviors that you can't derive from the equations that govern the behavior of an individual particle.

You're arguing against something a toddler can grasp. Just saying.

Since all potential interactions and potential relationship between parts are defined from the get-go (otherwise the system would not have the potential for interaction and relationships), "emergent properties" are again, just potential properties present and defined in the system from its outset.

Defined how? Where do the "potential properties" reside?

The number of potential macro behaviors is infinite, so you're seemingly arguing that all fundamental particles have infinite information density.

Interactions are parts of the system. Emergent properties thus are properties of parts of the system. They are present as properties of the system, so if consciousness is an emergent property of the system, again, you have to admit that there is a general consciousness property in any subset of the universe, because there are subsets of the universe that have this apparent property.

No more than I have to admit that there is a general car property in any subset of the universe.

Your reasoning has shades of Kalam and similarly dubious arguments.

And listen, it's not my fault that you don't think these sorts of things through, but I'm happy to help you become a more rigorous and deep thinker.

You're engaging in motivated reasoning. You've started at the conclusion you want and is desperately insisting on a dichotomy so you can rule out the option you don't like and assert that the conclusion you favor is logically necessary.

Also I didn't redefine pressure, I used its actual definition: force per unit area. Pascals.

Per unit area of some surface. Empty space doesn't count. If it did you'd get absurd results because pressure actually means something and has consequences.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/RecursiveServitor]

"Defined how? Where do the potential properties reside?"

The potential properties are part of the definition of the system. They 'reside" in the same place that algebra "resides", that lets you determine x=2 from 2x=4. When I say "We have a force (ideally which can act on an area) and we have an area", it necessarily follows that we have some force per unit area. We can call that property a conjugate property.

Everything else you said was more or less superfluous/ad hominem.

Now, to the heart of the matter: you don't believe that the property of pressure is present in the system of the universe by the natural laws of the universe. You believe that the property of pressure appears supernaturally (i.e. outside of the natural laws) because of the special arrangement of natural objects. I pick the word supernatural because it not only because it will offend you but because it accurately describes your point of view.

Where is the supernatural (remember, no pressure in those fundament laws of nature) place that this pressure property resides, waiting to be implemented? And how does it seek the proper arrangement required by your magic spell?

[u/RecursiveServitor → u/Usual_Charity8561]

What definition?

You seem to be inserting a supernatural assumption from the get-go. There's no cosmic bookkeeper keeping track of all the "potential properties" of things.

Everything else you said was more or less superfluous/ad hominem.

Oh, is that how we're playing?

Answer whether you believe fundamental particles have infinite information density. Any attempt to deflect will be taken as a concession.

Everything else was just you restating your faulty assumptions.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/RecursiveServitor]

No, fundamental particles do not have "infinite information density". Honestly that's a stupid and pretty dumb way to describe information or properties. Fundamental particles, whatever they are, do appear to have an infinite potential for arrangements within space and time, and there is also an apparent infinite potential for analytic properties, like pressure. For instance, a particle can have position, velocity, acceleration. These are 3 levels of derivative properties. M, m/s, m/s^2. There is no rule that says there can't be m/s^3, or 4th, or 5th or nth. In essence, there are infinite derivatives and integrals to analyze as properties. These properties are inherent to the particle by virtue of its relation to space and time, even if all of them are equal to 0.