6 ms·

Specs are ambiguous but not necessarily non-deterministic. The same entity interpreting the spec in exactly the same way will resolve the ambiguities the same

Specs are ambiguous but not necessarily non-deterministic. The same entity interpreting the spec in exactly the same way will resolve the ambiguities the same way each time. Human and current AI interpretation of specs is non-deterministic process. But, if we wanted to build a deterministic AI we could.

oblio 1y ago
> But, if we wanted to build a deterministic AI we could. Is this bold proposal backed by any theory?
- reverius42 1y ago
  Given that they all use pseudo-random (and not actually random) numbers, they are "deterministic" in the sense that given a fixed seed, they will produce a fixed result... But perhaps that's not what was meant by deterministic. Something like an understandable process producing an answer rather than a pile of linear algebra?
  - catoc 1y ago
    I was thinking the exact same thing: if you don’t change the weights, use identical “temperature” etc, the same prompt will yield the same output. Under the hood it’s still deterministic code running on a deterministic machine
    - block_dagger 1y ago
      This is incorrect. Temperature would need to be zero to get same result.
      - catoc 1y ago
        You’re right - TIL
      - jlawson 1y ago
        This is not correct. If the algorithm is deterministic and the random seed is the same, temperature can be anything and get the same result. Same as using a seed to get the same map generated in Dwarf Fortress.
        reverius42 1y ago
        Thanks for replying, this is what I thought as well.
- globular-toast 1y ago
  You can just change your definition of "AI". Back in the 60s the pinnacle of AI was things like automatic symbolic integration and these would certainly be completely deterministic. Nowadays people associate "AI" with stuff like LLMs and diffusion etc. that have randomness included in to make them seem "organic", but it doesn't have to be that way. I actually think a large part of people's amazement with the current breed of AI is the random aspect. It's long been known that random numbers are cool (see Knuth volume 2, in particular where he says randomness make computer-generated graphics and music more "appealing"). Unfortunately being amazed by graphics and music (and now text) output is one thing, making logical decisions with real consequences is quite another.
  - oblio 1y ago
    In 2025, 99% of people are talking about LLMs or stable diffusion.
    - globular-toast 1y ago
      So then your question boils down to "how could X, which I've defined as Y, be Z?"
      - oblio 1y ago
        The cutting edge of AI research is LLMs. Those aren't deterministic. You can build an "AI" with whatever you want, but context matters and we live in 2025, not 1985.
andruby 1y ago
> if we wanted to build a deterministic AI we could What's holding us back from building a deterministic generative AI? I probably don't understand enough, but I assumed that the non-determinism was "inherit" in the current LLM technology

oblio 1y ago

> But, if we wanted to build a deterministic AI we could. Is this bold proposal backed by any theory?

reverius42 1y ago
Given that they all use pseudo-random (and not actually random) numbers, they are "deterministic" in the sense that given a fixed seed, they will produce a fixed result... But perhaps that's not what was meant by deterministic. Something like an understandable process producing an answer rather than a pile of linear algebra?
- catoc 1y ago
  I was thinking the exact same thing: if you don’t change the weights, use identical “temperature” etc, the same prompt will yield the same output. Under the hood it’s still deterministic code running on a deterministic machine
  - block_dagger 1y ago
    This is incorrect. Temperature would need to be zero to get same result.
    - catoc 1y ago
      You’re right - TIL
    - jlawson 1y ago
      This is not correct. If the algorithm is deterministic and the random seed is the same, temperature can be anything and get the same result. Same as using a seed to get the same map generated in Dwarf Fortress.
      - reverius42 1y ago
        Thanks for replying, this is what I thought as well.
globular-toast 1y ago
You can just change your definition of "AI". Back in the 60s the pinnacle of AI was things like automatic symbolic integration and these would certainly be completely deterministic. Nowadays people associate "AI" with stuff like LLMs and diffusion etc. that have randomness included in to make them seem "organic", but it doesn't have to be that way. I actually think a large part of people's amazement with the current breed of AI is the random aspect. It's long been known that random numbers are cool (see Knuth volume 2, in particular where he says randomness make computer-generated graphics and music more "appealing"). Unfortunately being amazed by graphics and music (and now text) output is one thing, making logical decisions with real consequences is quite another.
- oblio 1y ago
  In 2025, 99% of people are talking about LLMs or stable diffusion.
  - globular-toast 1y ago
    So then your question boils down to "how could X, which I've defined as Y, be Z?"
    - oblio 1y ago
      The cutting edge of AI research is LLMs. Those aren't deterministic. You can build an "AI" with whatever you want, but context matters and we live in 2025, not 1985.

andruby 1y ago

> if we wanted to build a deterministic AI we could What's holding us back from building a deterministic generative AI? I probably don't understand enough, but I assumed that the non-determinism was "inherit" in the current LLM technology