Comment by soraminazuki
17 days ago
This gcc script that I created below is just as "deterministic" as an LLM. It produces the same result every time. Doesn't make it useful though.
echo '#!/usr/bin/env bash' > gcc
echo 'cat <<EOF' >> gcc
openssl rand -base64 100 >> gcc
echo 'EOF' >> gcc
chmod +x gcc
Also, how transformers work is not a spec of the LLM that anyone can use to learn how LLM produces code. It's no gcc source code.
You claimed they weren't deterministic, I have shown that they can be. I'm not sure what your point is.
And it is incorrect to base your analysis of future transformer performance on current transformer performance. There is a lot of ongoing research in this area and we have seen continual progress.
I reiterate:
> This is assuming by "deterministic," you mean the same thing I said about programming language implementations being "controllable, reproducible, and well-defined." If you mean it produces random but same results for the same inputs, then you haven't made any meaningful points.
"Determinism" is a word that you brought up in response to my comment, which I charitably interpreted to mean the same thing I was originally talking about.
Also, it's 100% correct to analyze things based on its fundamental properties. It's absurd to criticize people for assuming 2 + 2 = 4 because "continual progress" might make it 5 in the future.
What are these fundamental properties you speak of? 8 years ago this was all a pipe dream. Are you claiming to know what the next 8 years of transformer development will look like?
8 replies →