• anothermember@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours 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
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours 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
        ·
        10 hours 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
          ·
          10 hours 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.