upvote

points

by layer810 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby exe349 hours ago|
[-]
What does deterministic mean to you?
reply
upvoteby layer88 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In this context, it means being able to deterministically predict properties of the output based on properties of the input. That is, you don’t treat each distinct input as a unicorn, but instead consider properties of the input, and you want to know useful properties of the output. With LLMs, you can only do that statistically at best, but not deterministically, in the sense of being able to know that whenever the input has property A then the output will always have property B.
reply
upvoteby peyton7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I mean can’t you have a grammar on both ends and just set out-of-language tokens to zero. I thought one of the APIs had a way to staple a JSON schema to the output, for ex.

We’re making pretty strong statements here. It’s not like it’s impossible to make sure DROP TABLE doesn’t get output.

reply
upvoteby layer85 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You still can’t predict whether the in-language responses will be correct or not.

As an analogy: If, for a compiler, you verify that its output is valid machine code, that doesn’t tell you whether the output machine code is faithful to the input source code. For example, you might want to have the assurance that if the input specifies a terminating program, then the output machine code represents a terminating program as well. For a compiler, you can guarantee that such properties are true by construction.

More generally, you can write your programs such that you can prove from their code that they satisfy properties you are interested in for all inputs.

With LLMs, however, you have no practical way to reason about relations between the properties of inputs and outputs.

reply
upvoteby satvikpendem6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
And also have a blacklist of keywords detecting program that the LLM output is run through afterwards, that's probably the easiest filter.
reply
upvoteby tsimionescu7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I think they mean having some useful predicates P, Q such that for any input i and for any output o that the LLM can generate from that input, P(i) => Q(o).
reply
upvoteby exe342 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you could do that, why would you need an LLM? You'd already know the answer...
reply
upvoteby tsimionescu20 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Having that property is still a looooong way away from being able to get a meaningful answer. Consider P being something like "asks for SQL output" and Q being "is syntactically valid SQL output". This would represent a useful guarantee, but it would not in any way mean that you could do away with the LLM.
reply