I feel like we're walking in circles and not sure if you're doing this on purpose... >Here's what you started with: "The point about non-determinism is moot if

I feel like we're walking in circles and not sure if you're doing this on purpose... >Here's what you started with: "The point about non-determinism is moot if you understand how it works." Yes, the authors' point about non-determinism is moot because he draws this conclusion from LLMs being non-deterministic: "what works now may not work even 1 minute from now". This is largely untrue, because determinism and correctness are orthogonal to each other. It's silly to read that as "LLMs are deterministic". >When challenged you're now quite literally saying "oh yeah, they are all non-deterministic, will produce varying results, it's impossible to control the outcome, and there's some ideal non-existent LLM that will not have these issues" That's not what I'm saying. Better LLMs would be even less deterministic than current ones, but even that would not be a problem. >So what's your point and forest again? Point: "Determinism and correctness are orthogonal to each other". Forest: there's much more going on in LLMs than statistical closeness. At the same time, you can totally say that it's due to statistical closeness and not be wrong, of course.