Hacker News Reader

Comment by HarHarVeryFunny | Hacker News Reader

These models don't output sequences - which is where you'd use beam search - they output a single word at a time. The output is a set of probabilities (from a SoftMax) which is then sampled at a given sampling "temperature" (degree of randomness).

There's no point discussing it when you obviously don't have clue how these models work, won't listen when you're told, and just prefer to make stuff up.

View on HN

Beamsearch is just one example, the same applies to top sampling and greedy search. Focusing on one approach suggests you've missed the actual point: if you know how a given output is synthesized, then its not autonomous. You're trying to nitpick as an excuse to avoid a substantive response. If you want me to agree with you, you'll need to offer a counterpoint. Saying things like "It's driven by floating point values not 1's and 0's." and conflating pseudo randomness with actual randomness does not inspire confidence.

I was curious what your definition of intelligence was such that you thought GPT-4 doesn't exhibit it. It's your opinion - doesn't have to agree with mine.

You seem to place an importance on whether the models are entirely predictable or not, which is why I pointed out that the output is randomly sampled.

It's not random, its pseudo-random. Those are not the same thing.

You could choose to use a truly random hardware random number generator, and it would make zero difference to the system, empirically or philosophically.

I don't believe there is such a digital generator but if there were it would make the massive difference of being unpredictable (because there would be irrational numbers impossible to fully simulate ahead of time) from the perspective of all of its creators, which would then beg the question of who made its decisions, which would spark debate about its autonomy, which would then qualify it as intelligent as per the definition you requested earlier.

This is literally the first result if you google for "hardware random number generator".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generat...

Autonomous doesn't mean what you think it does. You can google for that too.

You may have a point though ... your responses do seem truly random, and that is certainly making me question your intelligence.

And if you google "unicorn" you will get this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

Sadly, having a wikipedia article does not mean something actually exists.

"The unicorn is a legendary creature" ... wow, you're right. that was disappointing.

https://www.amazon.com/TrueRNG-V3-Hardware-Random-Generator/... https://tectrolabs.com/ https://comscire.com/ https://onerng.info/ https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/product...

you are falling for the most basic marketing tricks in the book. just because something calls itself "trueRNG" does not mean it is. there's no possibility of those devices outputting an irrational number.

Did you google for irrational RNG ?

finite state machines can't process irrational numbers. there's nothing we can google that will change that.

You know the rules, and so do I:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

yep. no hard feelings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com