> I think you may be misreading my comment, then, because I know how LLMs work. Which part of my comment do you think shows that I don’t?
Your repeated comparisons to compilers in the context of determinism display a lack of understanding of compilers, LLMs and determinism. That's quite an impressive trifecta!
Unless you are expecting the definition of determinism to include this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911524 ... you can't really be surprised when people call out your definition of determinism as completely and utterly wrong.
A compiler is a function `f(x) -> y`. For given x, a specific compiler will in actual use always result in the specified y. There is no currently used LLM that I am aware of that is able to do that for any non-trivial input.
An LLM is a function `f(x) -> P(y)`. For a given x, you get a probability of y as the output.
If you are still unable to acknowledge that there is difference between `f(x) -> y` and `f(x) -> P(y)`, then there really isn't any reason to continue this thread.
Your repeated comparisons to compilers in the context of determinism display a lack of understanding of compilers, LLMs and determinism. That's quite an impressive trifecta!
Unless you are expecting the definition of determinism to include this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47911524 ... you can't really be surprised when people call out your definition of determinism as completely and utterly wrong.
A compiler is a function `f(x) -> y`. For given x, a specific compiler will in actual use always result in the specified y. There is no currently used LLM that I am aware of that is able to do that for any non-trivial input.
An LLM is a function `f(x) -> P(y)`. For a given x, you get a probability of y as the output.
If you are still unable to acknowledge that there is difference between `f(x) -> y` and `f(x) -> P(y)`, then there really isn't any reason to continue this thread.