> A one is always a one; you don’t measure it and find it off by some error; you can’t measure it a second time and get a different value.
Linus Torvalds famously only uses ECC memory in his dev machines. Why? Because every now and again either a cosmic ray or some electronic glitch will flip a bit from a zero to a one or from a one to a zero in his RAM. So no, a one is not always a one. A zero is not always a zero. In fact, you can measure it and find it off by some error. You can measure it a second time and get a different value. And because of this ever-so-slight glitchiness we invented ECC memory. Error correction codes are a thing because of this fundamental glitchiness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_memory
We understand when and how things can go wrong and we correct for that. Same goes for LLMs. In fact I would go so far as to say that someone doesn't even really think like how a software/hardware engineer ought to think if this is not nearly immediately obvious.
Besides the but-they're-not-deterministic crowd there's also the oh-you-find-coding-painful-do-you crowd. Both are engaging in this sort of real men write code with their bare hands nonsense -- if that were the case then why aren't we still flipping bits using toggle switches? We automate stuff, do we not? How is this not a step-change in automation? For the first time in my life my ideas aren't constrained by how much code I can manually crank out and it's liberating. It's not like when I ask my coding agent to provide me with a factorial function in Haskell it draws a tomato. It will, statistically speaking, give me a factorial function in Haskell. Even if I have never written a line of Haskell in my life. That's astounding. I can now write in Haskell if I want. Or Rust. Or you-name-it.
Aren't there projects you wanted to embark on but the sheer amount of time you'd need just to crank out the code prevented you from even taking the first step? Now you can! Do you ever go back to a project and spend hours re-familiarising yourself with your own code. Now it's a two minute "what was I doing here?" away from you.
> The non-determinism has nothing to do with temperature; it has everything to do with that fact that even at temp equal to zero, a single meaningless change can produce a different result. It has to do with there being no way to predict what will happen when you run the model on your prompt.
I never meant to imply that the only factor involved was temperature. For our purposes this is a pedantic correction.
> Coding with LLMs is not the same job. How could it be the same to write a mathematical proof compared to asking an LLM to generate that proof for you?
Correct, it's not the same. Nobody is arguing that it's the same. And it's wrong that it's different, it's just different that it's different.
> These are different tasks that use different parts of the brain.
> That's astounding. I can now write in Haskell if I want. Or Rust. Or you-name-it.
You're responsible for what you ship using it. If you don't know what you're reading, especially if it's a language like C or Rust, be careful shipping that code to production. Your work colleague might get annoyed with you if you ask them to review too many PRs with the subtle, hard-to-detect kind of errors that LLMs generate. They will probably get mad if you submit useless security reports like the ones that flood bug bounty boards. Be wary.
IMO the only way to avoid these problems is expertise and that comes from experience and learning. There's only one way to do that and there's no royal road or shortcut.
You’re making quite long and angry sounding comments.
If you’re making code in language you don’t know, then this code is as good as a magical black box. It will never be properly supported, it’s a dead code in the project that may do what it says it does or may not (a 100%).
I think you should refrain from replying to me until you're able to respond to the actual points of my counter-arguments to you -- and until you are able to do so I'm going to operate under the assumption that you have no valid or useful response.
Linus Torvalds famously only uses ECC memory in his dev machines. Why? Because every now and again either a cosmic ray or some electronic glitch will flip a bit from a zero to a one or from a one to a zero in his RAM. So no, a one is not always a one. A zero is not always a zero. In fact, you can measure it and find it off by some error. You can measure it a second time and get a different value. And because of this ever-so-slight glitchiness we invented ECC memory. Error correction codes are a thing because of this fundamental glitchiness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_memory
We understand when and how things can go wrong and we correct for that. Same goes for LLMs. In fact I would go so far as to say that someone doesn't even really think like how a software/hardware engineer ought to think if this is not nearly immediately obvious.
Besides the but-they're-not-deterministic crowd there's also the oh-you-find-coding-painful-do-you crowd. Both are engaging in this sort of real men write code with their bare hands nonsense -- if that were the case then why aren't we still flipping bits using toggle switches? We automate stuff, do we not? How is this not a step-change in automation? For the first time in my life my ideas aren't constrained by how much code I can manually crank out and it's liberating. It's not like when I ask my coding agent to provide me with a factorial function in Haskell it draws a tomato. It will, statistically speaking, give me a factorial function in Haskell. Even if I have never written a line of Haskell in my life. That's astounding. I can now write in Haskell if I want. Or Rust. Or you-name-it.
Aren't there projects you wanted to embark on but the sheer amount of time you'd need just to crank out the code prevented you from even taking the first step? Now you can! Do you ever go back to a project and spend hours re-familiarising yourself with your own code. Now it's a two minute "what was I doing here?" away from you.
> The non-determinism has nothing to do with temperature; it has everything to do with that fact that even at temp equal to zero, a single meaningless change can produce a different result. It has to do with there being no way to predict what will happen when you run the model on your prompt.
I never meant to imply that the only factor involved was temperature. For our purposes this is a pedantic correction.
> Coding with LLMs is not the same job. How could it be the same to write a mathematical proof compared to asking an LLM to generate that proof for you?
Correct, it's not the same. Nobody is arguing that it's the same. And it's wrong that it's different, it's just different that it's different.
> These are different tasks that use different parts of the brain.
Yes. And so what's your point?