Back to Notes
thought
llms
tokenization
nlp
ai

Why Character-Level LLMs Hilariously Fail at Meaning

July 6, 2026
Share:TwitterLinkedIn

When I was building a small GPT from scratch, I trained it on cooking recipes. I used character-level tokenization (where every single letter is its own token).

The model learned to perfectly structure a recipe: TITLE, INGREDIENTS, and INSTRUCTIONS. It learned real cooking verbs and proper quantity formats.

But it would routinely generate things like:

TITLE: Spicy Catfish
INGREDIENTS: 3 pounds ground beef ; 1 onion...

Why? Because a character-level model has absolutely no concept of "meaning."

It's predicting one character at a time based entirely on statistical patterns. It has learned that the letters b, e, e, f frequently appear after the INGREDIENTS: section in cooking texts.

But because it sees the world letter-by-letter, the concept of "Catfish" (7 tokens ago in the title) isn't strongly bound as a semantic constraint for the protein that must appear in the ingredients list.

This is exactly why production models (like GPT-4) use Subword Tokenization (like BPE - Byte-Pair Encoding).

With BPE, the model sees "catfish" and "beef" as discrete, single "word chunks" rather than a loose sequence of letters. This forces the model to learn the relationships between the concepts, not just the statistical likelihood of individual letters following one another.

Share:TwitterLinkedIn