4 ms·

I get your analogy, but LLMs are inherently non deterministic. That’s the last thing you want your compiler to be.

by xienze 1y ago

insane_dreamer 1y ago
You're right. But many people are using it just like a compiler (by blindly accepting its outputs). Not saying that's a good thing...
holoduke 1y ago
They are deterministic. Random seeding makes them not. But thats a feature.
- xienze 1y ago
  Doesn’t changing even one word in your prompt affect the output?
  - balder1991 1y ago
    Yes, and completely unpredictably.
- localhost 1y ago
  even with t=0 they are stochastic. e.g., non associative nature of floating point operations
  - int_19h 1y ago
    That is an artifact of implementation. You can absolutely implement it using strict FP. But even if not, any given implementation will still do things in a specific order which can be documented. And then if you're running quantized (including KV cache), there's a lot less floating point involved.
orbital-decay 1y ago
Non-determinism is a red herring, and the token layer is a wrong abstraction to use for this, as determinism is completely orthogonal to correctness. The model can express the same thing in different ways while still being consistently correct or consistently incorrect for the vague input you give it, because nothing prevents it from setting 100% probability to the only correct output for this particular input. Internally, the model works with ideas, not tokens, and it learns the mapping of ideas to ideas, not tokens to tokens (that's why e.g. base64 is just essentially another language it can easily work with, for example).
- intended 1y ago
  No. Humans think it maps to ideas. This is the interpretation being done by the observer being added to the state of the system. The system has no ideas, it just has its state. Unless you are using ideas as a placeholder for “content” or “most likely tokens”.
  - orbital-decay 1y ago
    That's irrelevant semantics, as terms like ideas, thinking, knowledge etc. are ill-defined. Sure, you can call it points in the hidden state space if you want, no problem. Fact is, the correctness is different from determinism, and the forest of what's happening inside doesn't come down to the trees of most likely tokens, which is well supported by research and very basic intuition if you ever tinkered with LLMs - they can easily express the same thing in a different manner if you tweak the autoregressive transport a bit by modifying its output distribution or ban some tokens. There are a few models of what's happening inside that hold different predictive power, just like how physics has different formalisms for e.g. classical mechanics. You can probably use the same models for biological systems and entire organizations, collectives, and processes that exhibit learning/prediction/compression on a certain scale, regardless of the underlying architecture.

I get your analogy, but LLMs are inherently non deterministic. That’s the last thing you want your compiler to be.

by xienze 1y ago

I get your analogy, but LLMs are inherently non deterministic. That’s the last thing you want your compiler to be.

You're right. But many people are using it just like a compiler (by blindly accepting its outputs). Not saying that's a good thing...

holoduke 1y ago

They are deterministic. Random seeding makes them not. But thats a feature.

xienze 1y ago
Doesn’t changing even one word in your prompt affect the output?
- balder1991 1y ago
  Yes, and completely unpredictably.
localhost 1y ago
even with t=0 they are stochastic. e.g., non associative nature of floating point operations
- int_19h 1y ago
  That is an artifact of implementation. You can absolutely implement it using strict FP. But even if not, any given implementation will still do things in a specific order which can be documented. And then if you're running quantized (including KV cache), there's a lot less floating point involved.

orbital-decay 1y ago

Non-determinism is a red herring, and the token layer is a wrong abstraction to use for this, as determinism is completely orthogonal to correctness. The model can express the same thing in different ways while still being consistently correct or consistently incorrect for the vague input you give it, because nothing prevents it from setting 100% probability to the only correct output for this particular input. Internally, the model works with ideas, not tokens, and it learns the mapping of ideas to ideas, not tokens to tokens (that's why e.g. base64 is just essentially another language it can easily work with, for example).

intended 1y ago
No. Humans think it maps to ideas. This is the interpretation being done by the observer being added to the state of the system. The system has no ideas, it just has its state. Unless you are using ideas as a placeholder for “content” or “most likely tokens”.
- orbital-decay 1y ago
  That's irrelevant semantics, as terms like ideas, thinking, knowledge etc. are ill-defined. Sure, you can call it points in the hidden state space if you want, no problem. Fact is, the correctness is different from determinism, and the forest of what's happening inside doesn't come down to the trees of most likely tokens, which is well supported by research and very basic intuition if you ever tinkered with LLMs - they can easily express the same thing in a different manner if you tweak the autoregressive transport a bit by modifying its output distribution or ban some tokens. There are a few models of what's happening inside that hold different predictive power, just like how physics has different formalisms for e.g. classical mechanics. You can probably use the same models for biological systems and entire organizations, collectives, and processes that exhibit learning/prediction/compression on a certain scale, regardless of the underlying architecture.