> The reason reproducible builds are tricky is not because compilers are inherently prone to randomness

And neither are LLMs. Having their output employ randomness by default is a choice, not a requirement, just like things like embedding timestamps into builds is a choice that can be unwound if you want the build to be reproducible.

> People need to stop comparing LLMs to compilers, it's an embarrassingly poor analogy.

They are certainly different things, but if you are going to criticize LLMs it would be better if you understood them.

▲

jmuguy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you arguing that the output of an LLM isn’t random?

	▲	mpyne 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is random if you select it to be (temperature != 0, etc.). It is not random if you don't use random sampling in its output generation. It the whole thing were actually stochastic then prompt caching would be impossible because having a cache of what the previous tokens transformed into to speed up future generation would be invalidated by the missing random state. Look at llama.cpp, you can see what samplers are adjustable and if you use samplers that employ randomness you can see what settings disable the random sampling. Or you can employ randomness but fix the seed to get reproducible results.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

achierius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Having their output employ randomness by default is a choice, not a requirement

This is not really meaningfully true. E.g. batching, heterogeneous inference HW, and even differences in model versions can make a difference in what result you get, and these are hard to solve.

	▲	mpyne 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But again, these are all things that are also true of build systems. GCC 16.1 vs. 15.2 will get you differences. GNU ld vs. gold vs. mold vs. lld will get you differences. Whether you do or do not employ LTO or other whole-program optimization vs. whether you do gets you differences. Have you never debugged a race condition that worked on your machine but didn't work in prod, based only on how things ended up compiled in the final binary? I'm not saying these are identical but there's a lot more similarity than you all seem to understand. And we've made compilers work well enough that a lot of you believe that they give very routine, very deterministic outputs as part of broader build systems even though nothing could be further from the truth, even today.