Comment by antonvs
3 days ago
I didn't say "you", I said "That would need to be demonstrated." It can't be assumed, for hopefully obvious reasons.
If someone comes up with an interpretability result based on analyzing a neural net algorithm, they'd want to provide some evidence that the result applies to actual executing models.
Happily, we already have good evidence that inference non-determinism doesn't generally invalidate results obtained through analysis of the algorithm. That's not to say there couldn't be pathological cases, but in general, this isn't something keeping researchers up at night.
Yeah, I call bs.
We have had good evidence that the choice of pivot doesn't generally invalidate the nlogn complexity of quicksort.
Except for when it does.
And then we do the work and prove an average of nlogn with a random pivot choice.
Then we know that quicksort is safe to use.
So no, I or anyone else don't need to demonstrate that the non-deterministic outcomes of inference are sometimes invalid. It's the other way around, always has been and always should be. This is "leaded gasoline is safe" mixed with "smoking is not addictive" propaganda.