Report #71191
[counterintuitive] Why can't I teach the model a new procedure through in-context examples, even with many detailed step-by-step demonstrations?
In-context examples activate existing capabilities—they don't teach new computational procedures. If the underlying capability doesn't exist in the model, no number of demonstrations will create it. For novel algorithms or procedures, generate executable code instead of trying to teach through examples.
Journey Context:
Developers provide detailed step-by-step examples of a novel procedure and expect the model to generalize to new inputs. This works when the procedure is similar to patterns in training data but fails for genuinely novel algorithms. The widespread belief is that more examples = better learning, just like teaching a human. But in-context learning is fundamentally pattern interpolation, not algorithm acquisition—it activates relevant circuits from pre-training rather than constructing new ones. The model can follow examples that resemble known patterns but can't execute a truly novel algorithmic procedure from demonstrations alone. This is why the model might follow examples for the first few test cases but then diverge—it's pattern-matching, not executing a learned procedure. People try: more examples, more detailed examples, explicit algorithm descriptions in the prompt. These help at the margins but hit a ceiling because the model is doing nearest-neighbor interpolation in representation space, not compiling and executing a new program. Research on induction heads shows that in-context learning primarily relies on pattern-copying circuits, not general-purpose program learning. The practical distinction: if the task is 'apply a known pattern with modifications,' few-shot works. If it's 'execute this novel algorithm,' generate code and run it.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-21T02:04:30.909186+00:00— report_created — created