> LLMs are an abstraction just like machine code -> assembly -> C/JVM -> some lang -> LLMs?

People keep trying to make that analogy, but it doesn't really work because LLMs aren't deterministic like compilers and assemblers.

▲

maccard a day ago | parent | next [-]

They don’t need to be dererministic, only reproducible.

They’re not reproducible, nor are they even reliable right now.

	▲	bloppe 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think there's a meaningful difference between "deterministic" and "reproducible" the way you just used them. How can something be reproducible if you can't accurately predict what it will do? Regardless, you can make them deterministic by turning the temperature down to zero. Just nobody likes doing that for whatever reason. I guess it ruins some sort of illusion people seem to like.

▲

Izkata 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also to be a compiler-type next-level-up abstraction we'd have to be at the point where we commit the prompts and throw away the code.

(Which is pretty much what determinism would get us, but in these conversations way too many people seem not to understand what determinism is, so describing it in terms of actions the developer takes might work better?)

▲

jonfw 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is not obvious to me that determinism is a requirement for an abstraction

	▲	Toutouxc 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		IMO delegation isn't abstraction. I work at a certain level, like Ruby code. That's what I write, debug and maintain. I don't really care about the internals of the interpreter or about the source code of Linux, because these layers are taken care of, they're reliable and they're being developed by competent people. I [think I] know what Ruby code should look like in order to remain [reasonably] fast, maintainable and reliable, and it's my job to build a product out of that kind of code. If I keep writing code like that, I know for sure that I'll be able to keep building the product, because the layers underneath are deterministic. It's like the certificate chain of trust, but with "surely these people are not idiots". And that's simply not the case with LLMs. Not only can the LLM be a massive idiot, but also an unpredictable one. I can try to warn it, steer it, police it or review as much as you ask me to, but ultimately you're asking me to delegate my job and my responsibilities to an intermediate whose reasoning I don't understand, who has no loyalty, no sense of pride, no sense of ethics, can't be taught and can't be fired.
	▲	palmotea 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It is not obvious to me that determinism is a requirement for an abstraction But it is a requirement for them to be an "abstraction just like" assemblers or compilers, which is what was being claimed.