I've seen LLMs do something correct 98% of the time then randomly do something crazy that a human would never do because we have continual learning

As humans we don't have our memory reset multiple times per day

▲

ben_w 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I've seen LLMs do something correct 98% of the time then randomly do something crazy that a human would never do because we have continual learning

I've seen humans vote for Brexit, re-elect Trump, ask questions clearly already answered in an FAQ, try to pull on a door labelled "push", and insist on giving me homeopathic silicon dioxide pills* that cost £5** for a 10-12 gram packet.

Continual learning is a difference, but not by itself a reason to care about "deterministic results".

Nor, indeed, correct results.

> As humans we don't have our memory reset multiple times per day

Humans need sleep well before they can read a million tokens' worth of written text. We're more like 300k tokens if you're actually reading and not skimming for 16 hours straight.

Again, different (in soooo many ways), but this isn't a relevant difference when the topic is "deterministic results".

* yes, sand: https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?set...

** and that was what it cost in the 90s

	▲	ex-aws-dude 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If I do the same task 100 times I'm not going to suddenly do it crazily different at time 101 because I've built in the memory of how to do it There is no RNG involved when I decide to push vs pull the unlabeled door to my building every morning, it becomes deterministic because its baked into memory You can put stuff in context to deal with this but you can't do that for everything, its not practical and you would blow the context window