Comment on Microsoft AI CEO pushes back against critics after recent Windows AI backlash — "the fact that people are unimpressed ... is mindblowing to me"

• Nalivai@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  That’s not the predictability we want. If I write a calculator that adds the output of rand() to any result, it will also be repeatable with the same seed on the same machine. It will be nin-functional as a calculator though.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Depends on your use case. Adding 0.000001*rand() to a large number retains the functionality as a calculator.

    Your argument that AI isn’t useful may be valid, but claiming that AI is not repeatable is false.

    source

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      AI is in fact not meaningfully repeatable in actual usage patterns.

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Agreed. The word “patterns” is an important qualification. LLMs are great for one off tasks, but not as part of a repeatable process.

        source
    • yermaw@sh.itjust.works ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Technically its repeatable under perfect conditions? Probably I don’t understand it well enough.

      Realistically repeatable when Average Joe gets his hands on it? Not today anyway.

      source

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        The seed for the random number generator isn’t usually exposed to the user. Also the AI service providers regularly update the model and/or weights, producing different outputs.

        If you are running your own LLM on your own hardware you can guarantee repeatablity, but that’s not what your average Joe does.

        source