I'll grant that you can guarantee the length of the output and, being a computer program, it's possible (though not always in practice) to rerun and get the same result each time, but that's not guaranteeing anything about said output.

▲

satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What do you want to guarantee about the output, that it follows a given structure? Unless you map out all inputs and outputs, no it's not possible, but to say that it is a fundamental property of LLMs to be non deterministic is false, which is what I was inferring you meant, perhaps that was not what you implied.

▲

program_whiz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah I think there are two definitions of determinism people are using which is causing confusion. In a strict sense, LLMs can be deterministic meaning same input can generate same output (or as close as desired to same output). However, I think what people mean is that for slight changes to the input, it can behave in unpredictable ways (e.g. its output is not easily predicted by the user based on input alone). People mean "I told it don't do X, then it did X", which indicates a kind of randomness or non-determinism, the output isn't strictly constrained by the input in the way a reasonable person would expect.

	▲	yunwal 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The correct word for this IMO is "chaotic" in the mathematical sense. Determinism is a totally different thing that ought to retain it's original meaning.

▲

wat10000 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They didn't say LLMs are fundamentally nondeterministic. They said there's no way to deterministically guarantee anything about the output.

Consider parameterized SQL. Absent a bad bug in the implementation, you can guarantee that certain forms of parameterized SQL query cannot produce output that will perform a destructive operation on the database, no matter what the input is. That is, you can look at a bit of code and be confident that there's no Little Bobby Tables problem with it.

You can't do that with an LLM. You can take measures to make it less likely to produce that sort of unwanted output, but you can't guarantee it. Determinism in input->output mapping is an unrelated concept.

▲

silon42 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can guarantee what you have test coverage for :)

	▲	rightofcourse 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		haha, you are not wrong, just when a dev gets a tool to automate the _boring_ parts usually tests get the first hit
	▲	bdangubic 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		depends entirely on the quality of said test coverage :)