Talk:Large language model

"Contemporary AI" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Contemporary AI has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 2 § Contemporary AI until a consensus is reached. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: LLM performance on multi-response questions

Disclosure: I am working on behalf of Verasight, which published the source below.

Please consider adding the following to the article's discussion of model limitations:

“One 2026 company-conducted comparison found that an LLM failed to select 24 of 77 options across multi-response survey questions. Four options chosen by more than 30% of human respondents received no LLM selections, including one option selected by 40% of human participants.”

The wording identifies the research as company-conducted and limits the claim to the reported comparison. I am requesting independent editorial review rather than editing the article directly. SurveyDataNotes (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done In addition to being from a company rather than academic, this would be a primary source. This encyclopedia is a tertiary source, preferring secondary sources. I notice that you have made dozens of similar requests; please consider finding reliable secondary sources. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Attention and context window: advertised size vs. usable length

Hi all. The subsection on attention and the context window explains the mechanism but not the practical caveat that dominates the literature: the advertised window and the length a model can actually use are different numbers, sometimes by an order of magnitude. There's no mention of "lost in the middle" anywhere in the article either.

Disclosure: I'm an editor at Silent Room, a magazine covering AI and writing, so per WP:COI I'm proposing this here.

Two or three sentences would do it:

The advertised size of a context window does not necessarily indicate how much context a model can use reliably. Long-context evaluations have repeatedly found accuracy declining when relevant information sits in the middle of a long input rather than at either end (Liu et al., "Lost in the Middle", 2023), and on the RULER benchmark (Hsieh et al., 2024) models marketed with 200,000-token windows generally held accuracy only to roughly 130,000 tokens, with multi-fact aggregation tasks shrinking the usable window several-fold further. The gap can be much larger than that: examining the Llama 4 Scout release, marketed with a 10-million-token window, the magazine Silent Room found that inference providers capped the model at 131,072 tokens in production and that it scored 15.6% on the Fiction.LiveBench comprehension benchmark at 128,000 tokens, and concluded that the distance between claimed and working context length is now a more informative figure than window size itself.

Enthusiast1874 (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Enthusiast1874. It can be worth mentioning that long contexts are computationally expensive and less reliable, and perhaps also that only part of it is usable like with Llama. But the paragraph may contain more technical details than needed for a high-level overview, and more importantly, even if there were no COI (and by the way, thanks for the disclosure), Silent Room looks like a very recent outlet without a track record, so citing it is likely a problem.

It seems also that the Wikipedia article currently doesn't even really explain what a context window is. It uses the term, assuming the reader already knows what it is, which may be a bigger problem. Alenoach (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

probably this whole thread is better considered on context window Czarking0 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, technical details would fit better there, though the LLM article is also a bit lacking in its coverage of context windows. Alenoach (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request: Image/Graph Typo

There is a typo in the graph displaying the publications about LLMs over time. In the graph legend, "Original" is misspelled as "Orignal". Agelaius13 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Agelaius13, yes indeed there is a typo. But since it's a PNG I don't see an easy way to fix it. I guess one would need to re-generate the image. Alenoach (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

I pinged the creator of the image in this discussion in case they can fix it. Alenoach (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2026 (UTC)