3 ms·
I think you’re assuming your reference is the correct one. I can’t reason about the assembly language that the compiler spits out, the microcode in the CPU ker
by DougN7 2y ago
I think you’re assuming your reference is the correct one. I can’t reason about the assembly language that the compiler spits out, the microcode in the CPU kernel or any of the electronics on the motherboard. That anyone can or not doesn’t change things in my opinion. It’s an arbitrary distinction to say _this_ abstraction is uniquely different in this very specific way.
- grey-area 2y agoCompilers are deterministic. LLMs are not.
- yodon 2y ago>Compilers are deterministic They seem that way, until you're tasked with getting a repeatable, idempotent build out of a non-trivial build system.
- marcinzm 2y agoLLMs are deterministic if you force a seed or disable sampling. They however do not guarantee that small input changes will cause small output changes.
- Jensson 2y ago> LLMs are deterministic if you force a seed or disable sampling Not with todays GPU's, you would need to run it locally with special GPU settings or run it on your CPU to ensure it is deterministic.
- DougN7 2y agoSo? Compilers compile and LLMs do not. Compilers use linkers and LLMs do not. Arbitrary distinctions don’t means “this time it’s different”.
- grey-area 2y agoSo as the OP said, all the parts are deterministic in this stack. Their behavior is fixed for a given input, and all the parts are interpretable, readable, verifiable and observable. This is entirely different from LLMs which are opaque even to their designers, and have unpredictable flaws and hallucinations, they are probability machines based on what data they have been exposed to, which means they are not a reliable way to generate programs. Maybe one day we'll fix this, but the current generation is not very useful for programming because of this.