• hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    LLMs won’t spit out the same word-for-word response for the same prompt

    You can give an LLM the same seed and it will spit out the same word-for-word response. That’s how they work. It’s just a bunch of math.

    • anothermember@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You can give an LLM the same seed and it will spit out the same word-for-word response. That’s how they work. It’s just a bunch of math.

      You’re assuming that because I missed out that detail I must be ignorant of it, that’s not very charitable, I could well have been ignorant of it but you could have made your otherwise useful clarification without telling me I was wrong.

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        You said “that’s not how they work”. But that is how they work. Same prompt = same output. Throw some random data in there to jumble things around and you get a little variance. That’s the seed, and we only need to do that because LLMs are inherently deterministic.

        Same reason Minecraft has a random seed for world generation, and block cipher algorithms use an initialization vector and/or feedback loop. We don’t want the same thing every time.

        I did say that you’re right, because the tooling we use around the LLM itself does exactly what you’re talking about. So, in practice, you’re right.

        • anothermember@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Again, you’re telling me what I already know, because you’re still assuming. I can make the point that same prompts don’t produce the same output without explaining about random seeds.

          • hperrin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I honestly wasn’t trying to attack you. I think we should be careful when we talk about LLMs, because it’s important for people to know that it’s just a bunch of math in a computer program. A lot of people have a tendency to anthropomorphize it.

            • borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              A lot of people have a tendency to anthropomorphize it.

              Yeah. The amount of people that learned about persistent file-based memory and think it’s some indication that the llm they’re promoting is alive, has sentience, or has persistent self-identity and self-awareness instead of recognizing it’s just a way to inject previously learned context when it’s needed without burning tokens sending it with every prompt you send is out of control.

              I stumbled across some weird hybrid psychonaut x Claude collab subreddit the other day and holy shit ai psychosis is real.

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        How did you possibly get that from what I said? Are you purposefully being as uncharitable as possible?

        No, I clearly was not talking about this situation. I was clarifying how your interpretation was correct, but you were factually incorrect.

          • hperrin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It’s called pedantry, and I have never failed to own it. At this point, I feel like you’re trying to be overly abrasive.

            Was it not your interpretation that the messages seem to not be from LLMs, because they’re identical? Because that’s literally what you said.

              • hperrin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Fair enough. Still, why would you misrepresent my view so radically unless you were being uncharitable on purpose?

                  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    People confuse LLMs for being non-deterministic all the time. The comment implied that. I want people to understand that LLMs are deterministic, because I don’t want people confusing them with actual intelligence or some sort of “black magic”. But sure man, whatever excuse you need to be an asshole to a stranger.