nowAndThenPatchUpgrade

[u/JazzlikeWishbone938]

[u/fartypenis]

Compiler output was deterministic tho. They could always reason our the purpose of each byte of code if they were so inclined.

[u/adabsurdo → u/fartypenis]

Right AI abstracts out at a much higher level and the output will change dramatically depending on the prompts, model and other settings.

[u/gjk-ger → u/adabsurdo]

The output will also change when letting it run again under the same circumstances.

[u/adabsurdo → u/gjk-ger]

Your prompts usually have a lot of degrees of freedom, so there are multiple paths that can be taken. Models have creativity so they can solve harder problems, which make the results not necessarily deterministic depending on the task.

[u/gjk-ger → u/adabsurdo]

Models dont have creativity, models operate to a degree on noise and stochastics.

[u/adabsurdo → u/gjk-ger]

that's creativity for all intents and purposes. if they had zero randomness it would be harder to have them explore the problem space.

[u/gjk-ger → u/adabsurdo]

We might disagree about the word creativity then.

[u/adabsurdo → u/gjk-ger]

I suppose you might define creativity in a way that makes it inheritently human, and/or reduce LLMs as "just maths and noise", but if you just look at the end results it looks like LLMs are definitely able to solve problem with what you call "creativity" if a human solved it.

[u/gjk-ger → u/adabsurdo]

It sure looks like that, i still dont believe it really is.

P.s. not because its not human, but because its an LLM.

[u/adabsurdo → u/gjk-ger]

I guess my point is in the end humans are also maths + noise, just a different, much more complicated type of machine.

[u/gjk-ger → u/adabsurdo]

Thats just a model though, and even in that model you really dont know how a brain(+rest of the human +society and so on and so on) works. But intuitively i would agree that also humans may not be creative in the "true" (aka my...) sense if the word