Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisjj | Hacker News Reader

A deterministic LLM is possible. Would you trust it?

they probably mean deterministic in the sense of traditional computer programs consisting of if-else decision points and ordinary cpu logic, as opposed to numerical models (which can of course be deterministic too, as you pointed out)

Model inference is just that same logic but faster.

I think the point is determined. No-one can determine what the LLM might do.

> Model inference is just that same logic but faster.

This statement is nonsensical.

There are 2 levels of determinism that matter here IMO. Level 1, given the same input you get the same output. Level 2, you know what to change on the input to get a specific change on the output.

LLMs are currently capable of level 1, but not capable of level 2. Trust follows what is actually deterministic.

Trust should, but instead is being gulled by those incapable LLMs. And I don't see that changing, given the typical human's seemingly unlimited vulnerability to this con.

I mean in the traditional software sense. We trust autopilots to fly planes. Would you get on a plane flown by an LLM?

Then I think I'd rephrase you: There's a reason we trust trusted systems.

Even their fans agree, LLMs are inherently unreliable. The fact some people trust them regardless is due to a deep flaw in human psychology that I believe has not been significantly exploited by any previous tech. There will be tears.

I think two things contribute to the trust in LLMs:

1. Decades of generally reliable systems (I trust my calculator because it always says 1+1=2) has trained people to believe what computers say.

2. LLMs "speak" with great confidence, which has, as you say, a psychological effect.

I agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com