▲ | riazrizvi 5 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural language is ambiguous. It needs to be. I think the approach here of trying to figure out how to make circles into squares, and argue why circles should be squares, is misguided. Discussions of this type are going to eventually morph into better understanding of how to accept ambiguity and randomness in language, and further shape it with other larger sub-patterns beyond the little proto-grammars that the QKV projection matrices extract. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | atoav 5 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, but determinism != ambiguity, because determinism means: for this exact input the same exact output needs to follow. If I ask the same model the same question I should be able to deterministically get the same answer. Now if we phrase the same question slightly differently we would expect to get a slightly different answer. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|