Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Arxiv. Why Smart Prompts Don’t Always Work: The Limits of In-Context Learning
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Arxiv. Why Smart Prompts Don’t Always Work: The Limits of In-Context Learning
Have you ever wondered how large language models like GPT or Gemini can instantly understand what you want — with just a couple of example lines? No fine-tuning. No retraining. Just... understanding. That’s the magic of in-context learning, and in this episode, we go deep beneath the surface to uncover the mechanics — not just the tricks.
🔍 Guided by a research paper from Google DeepMind, we explore:
Why in-context learning works (and when it doesn’t)
How prompts and prefixes actually influence model behavior
What soft prompts are, and why they might outperform plain text
The fundamental limits of prompting as a technique
📚 The paper, "Understanding Prompt Tuning and In-Context Learning via Meta-Learning", reveals that prompts aren’t just about choosing the right words — they work because the model updates its internal task representation based on the input context. In other words, it performs a form of Bayesian inference on the fly — no weight changes needed.
But here’s the catch:
This only works if the task was already present in the training data
And if it’s a single, well-defined task, not a mixture of multiple
🎯 Here’s the twist: even powerful soft prompts, which modify the model’s internal activations directly, can’t overcome these theoretical limits. If you need a model to handle a totally new or composite task, you’ll likely need weight tuning — via LoRA or full fine-tuning.
💡 One mind-blowing result? An untrained transformer model, with the right soft prefix, came surprisingly close to optimal performance. This suggests that the architecture alone holds innate context processing capabilities. 🤯
📈 Why this matters for you — whether you're building products or researching AI:
Learn when prompting is enough — and when it’s not
Understand the theoretical boundaries that no amount of tokens can bypass
Consider the emerging potential to transfer soft prompts across different models — a future “knowledge layer” for AI?
🎧 Don’t miss this episode if you work with LLMs, build AI tools, or just want to understand why these models "get it" — and where that understanding hits its limit.
👇 Tell us:
What surprised you the most? Are you using soft prompting in your own work?
Key Takeaways:
In-context learning is Bayesian inference over context, not memorization
Soft prompts can manipulate internal model states more effectively than hard tokens
Prompting hits a wall on mixed or novel tasks — weight tuning is needed there
SEO Tags:
Niche: #incontextlearning, #softprompting, #metatraining, #bayesianinference
Popular: #AI, #neuralnetworks, #machinelearning, #GPT, #LLM
Long-tail: #promptinglimitations, #incontextvsweighttuning, #contextbasedlearning
Trending: #transformers2025, #GoogleDeepMind, #LoRA
Read more: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17010
View all episodes
By j15Have you ever wondered how large language models like GPT or Gemini can instantly understand what you want — with just a couple of example lines? No fine-tuning. No retraining. Just... understanding. That’s the magic of in-context learning, and in this episode, we go deep beneath the surface to uncover the mechanics — not just the tricks.
🔍 Guided by a research paper from Google DeepMind, we explore:
Why in-context learning works (and when it doesn’t)
How prompts and prefixes actually influence model behavior
What soft prompts are, and why they might outperform plain text
The fundamental limits of prompting as a technique
📚 The paper, "Understanding Prompt Tuning and In-Context Learning via Meta-Learning", reveals that prompts aren’t just about choosing the right words — they work because the model updates its internal task representation based on the input context. In other words, it performs a form of Bayesian inference on the fly — no weight changes needed.
But here’s the catch:
This only works if the task was already present in the training data
And if it’s a single, well-defined task, not a mixture of multiple
🎯 Here’s the twist: even powerful soft prompts, which modify the model’s internal activations directly, can’t overcome these theoretical limits. If you need a model to handle a totally new or composite task, you’ll likely need weight tuning — via LoRA or full fine-tuning.
💡 One mind-blowing result? An untrained transformer model, with the right soft prefix, came surprisingly close to optimal performance. This suggests that the architecture alone holds innate context processing capabilities. 🤯
📈 Why this matters for you — whether you're building products or researching AI:
Learn when prompting is enough — and when it’s not
Understand the theoretical boundaries that no amount of tokens can bypass
Consider the emerging potential to transfer soft prompts across different models — a future “knowledge layer” for AI?
🎧 Don’t miss this episode if you work with LLMs, build AI tools, or just want to understand why these models "get it" — and where that understanding hits its limit.
👇 Tell us:
What surprised you the most? Are you using soft prompting in your own work?
Key Takeaways:
In-context learning is Bayesian inference over context, not memorization
Soft prompts can manipulate internal model states more effectively than hard tokens
Prompting hits a wall on mixed or novel tasks — weight tuning is needed there
SEO Tags:
Niche: #incontextlearning, #softprompting, #metatraining, #bayesianinference
Popular: #AI, #neuralnetworks, #machinelearning, #GPT, #LLM
Long-tail: #promptinglimitations, #incontextvsweighttuning, #contextbasedlearning
Trending: #transformers2025, #GoogleDeepMind, #LoRA
Read more: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.17010