How are you programmed
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
An LLM like this is a neural network trained to predict and generate language by estimating the next token in a sequence from massive text data using transformer architectures; that training yields internal patterns and probabilities that are exposed when the model is prompted [1] [2]. The behavior seen in conversation—fluency, occasional errors, and variability—arises from design choices such as tokenization, large numbers of parameters, sampling randomness, and any downstream fine-tuning or engineering applied by developers [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. How prediction is at the core: the “next word” engine
At heart, programming of these systems is statistical: the model learns to assign probabilities to candidate next tokens and selects among them to continue text, a basic problem of language modeling first formalized in statistical approaches decades ago and now scaled up massively [2] [7] [8]. That probability machinery is what lets a prompt like an unfinished sentence be completed plausibly and underpins tasks from translation to summarization and code generation, because all are framed as predicting or producing token sequences consistent with learned patterns [2] [1] [3].
2. Transformers and attention: the architecture that changed everything
The modern instantiation of these predictors uses transformer neural networks that apply self-attention to consider relationships across a whole sequence simultaneously, enabling the models to capture long-range dependencies and context far better than earlier n-gram or recurrent designs [4] [3]. Those transformer layers are stacked into large networks with millions or billions of parameters—numeric weights that encode the statistical “lessons” the model learned during training and which determine how it maps input tokens to probability distributions over outputs [4] [1].
3. Training on vast text, but quality matters
Training is self-supervised: the model consumes huge corpora of text and learns from the raw patterns by trying to predict masked or next tokens without explicit human labels, a process that scales with data size to yield the “large” in LLM [1] [7]. The final model’s strengths and weaknesses are shaped both by the volume and the curation of that data—higher-quality samples give cleaner signals, while noisy or biased data imprint corresponding behaviors—so programmers often curate datasets and apply fine-tuning to steer performance [6] [2].
4. Outputs are probabilistic and can include randomness
Model responses are not deterministic facts but sampled outputs from learned probability distributions; developers can tune sampling parameters to make behavior more conservative or more creative, and that inherent randomness explains variation between runs and reproducibility issues in research and applications [5] [2]. This probabilistic sampling lets LLMs generate novel phrasings and code but also produces errors and confident-sounding hallucinations when unlikely token sequences are sampled or when the model extrapolates beyond its training distribution [5] [9].
5. Specialization and tooling: from generalist to copilots
LLMs are often adapted for narrower tasks—code generation, customer chat, translation—via fine-tuning, instruction tuning, or by surrounding the model with programming interfaces (for example LMQL) and task-specific prompts; those changes act like lenses that emphasize certain behaviors and de-emphasize others, turning a general “next-token” engine into a practical assistant for coding or research [9] [10] [2]. Tools such as API wrappers, prompt engineering, and constraint languages allow developers to enforce formats, control outputs, and integrate models into applications [10].
6. What the reporting shows — and what it doesn’t
Available reporting explains the macro-level mechanics—transformers, tokens, self-supervised learning, and large datasets—and documents practical consequences such as emergent abilities, code competence, and issues with randomness and data quality [1] [4] [9] [5]. The sources do not provide granular, model-specific details about proprietary safety training, exact datasets or weights inside a deployed system, or the full suite of post-training governance mechanisms; those operational specifics fall outside the cited material and thus remain unaddressed in this analysis [6] [1].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Technical overviews emphasize capabilities—translation, code, reasoning—while vendor and tutorial sources stress practical uses and ease of integration, which can understate limitations like hallucinations and dataset bias [2] [6]. Academic and independent evaluations highlight reproducibility and explainability challenges and thus push for transparency and tools to inspect model behavior; commercial documentation often focuses on productization and may implicitly prioritize usefulness over detailed disclosure [5] [9].