C++ is my favorite language I’ve ever programmed in and is not even close, but I spent way too much of my time on code reviews because I couldn’t trust almost anyone I worked with not to create dangling refs, memory leaks, etc

How does unique_ptr teach reference counting? It’s just a way to interface with RAII and move semantics

we are all free to listen to eachother’s point of views, then arrive at our own conclusions .

Sure, but I’m not going to pretend for a second that the pseudointellectual masturbation of “rationalists” is worth a damn just because their narratives were useful to capalist oligarchs so some people call them “experts” now. What a farce

The existence of enshitification isn’t an argument that every attempt to make something profitable via enshitification will succeed.

Even standard boiler plate I can typically bang out faster than asking the AI to do it

The people that claim it helps with boilerplate clearly never took the time to learn how to sed/awk, mustache templates, write a perl/python/etc script, use the regex find/replace in their editor, use the keyboard macro in their editor, use snippets in their editor and I’m sure other ways that aren’t immediately coming to mind that have existed forever and won’t hallucinate. They’re the ones that were not highly skilled in the first place and they’re vexingly successful at convincing newbies and laymen to listen to them about LLMs instead of the actual skilled people that actually know what they’re talking about.

including dozens of experts who work directly in AI governance and AI technical fields.

All of those people are fucking clowns and you know it. They’re these morons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalist_community

If I need to look through a massive set of data like Google for something thst I can only describe with an explanation, the LLM will do a much faster job actually finding what you need rather thsn spending an hour manually sorting through SEO slop.

You could also use any other search engine since Google intentionally wrecked their search, and use the adblock list that filters out the seo slop. Just as efficient and less glacier melting

I don’t believe that for a second. Everyone I know that talks about being more productive is just pushing extra work onto more responsible people by making output that looks like work but isn’t sufficient.

Everyone I work with that uses it is worse at their job than before they started using it, and I’ve lost the ability to teach them how to actually do good work because telling the c-suite they’re 10x now (even though they’re producing only slightly more code and more issues) makes the c-suite happy. I could believe that some people have made small improvements to their workflows but its obvious to anyone competent that it’s not as big as an improvement as they’d have you believe and the vast majority is just people getting addicted to the slot machine, deskilling, and creating inferior output.

technology is incredibly useful and probably beneficial to society

For what? It’s not reliable enough to actually automate anything and people that use it regularly inevitably stop checking the output and start falling victim to hallucinations. It’s pretty good at rifling through social media posts which I don’t think is good for society and it’s OK as a frontline support system but even that they normally go too far and just make it infuriating

• replacing human workers is their fondest dream so they want to believe so hard
• they have FOMO “everyone else is doing it and I don’t want to lose out”
• everyone else is doing it and if they didn’t do it and were wrong, it would be worse for their reputation than following the pack and being wrong
• c suite types talk to each other and they’ve formed an echo chamber

In summary, CEOs (of large public companies anyway - your mom and pop plumber could also be a CEO) are not smarter than the average person. Just more amoral and having the connections to be CEOs

Not really. You can’t just walk by with a cell phone to configure a flash drive that is already plugged in and convert it to an attack vector. The method of setting up the attack device is the shocking part. You don’t even have you push a pairing button on the speaker to connect to it.

My dad is in his 70s and he spends most of his time playing open world shooters/rpgs. He just finished borderlands whatever is new and started his 5th or so witcher 3 run. He also plays free to play puzzle games on mobile (to my disappointment)

My point being that I think “games for the retired people” is just games…

1. Floating point math is deterministic.
2. Systems don’t have to be programmed with race conditions. That is not a fundamental aspect of an LLM, but a design decision.
3. Systems don’t have to be programmed to tie break with random methods. That is not a fundamental aspect of an LLM, but a design decision.

This is not hard stuff to understand, if you understand computing.

You can, at that will cause the same output on the same input if there is no variation in floating point rounding errors. (True if the same code is running but easy when optimizing to hit a round up/down and if the tokens are very close the output will diverge)

There are more aspects to the randomness such as race conditions and intentionally nondeterministic tiebreaking when tokens have the same probability, apparently.

I actually think LLMs are ill suited for the vast majority of things people are currently using them for, and there are obviously the ethical problems with data centers bringing new fossil fuel power sources online, but the technology is interesting in and of itself

I said I was wrong in that my statement was overly broad and not applicable to the systems most people are using in my initial response to you, then clarified that it is not an intrinsic character of the technology at large but that the implementations that are most used have it.

You apparently think that conversations are a battle with winners and losers so the fact you were right that the biggest systems are nondeterministic for reasons outside of temperature configuration means it doesn’t matter why, doesn’t matter that those factors don’t have to apply to every inference system, and doesn’t matter that you have no idea what determinism means.

In any case talking to you seems like a waste of time, so enjoy your sad victory lap while I block you so I don’t make the mistake of engaging you assuming you’re an earnest interlocutor in the future.

Deterministic systems are always predictable, even if you never ran the system. Can you determine the output of an LLM with zero temperature without ever having ran it?

You don’t have to understand a deterministic system for it to be deterministic. You are making that up.

And even disregarding the above, no, they are still NOT deterministic systems

I conceded that setting temperature to 0 for an arbitrary system (including all the remote ones most people are using) does not mean it is deterministic after reading about other factors that influence inference in these systems. That does not mean there are not deterministic implementations of LLM inference, and repeating yourself with NO additional information and using CAPS does NOT make you more CORRECT lol.

You also have to run the model with the input to determine what the output will be, no way to determine it BEFORE running. With a deterministic system, if you know the code you can predict the output with 100% accuracy without ever running it.

This is not the definition of determinism. You are adding qualifications.

I did look it up and I see now there are other factors that aren’t under your control if you’re using a remote system, so I’ll amend my statement to say that you can have deterministic inference systems, but the big ones most people use cannot be configured to be by the user.

You can actually set it up to give the same outputs given the same inputs (temperature = 0). The variability is on purpose