• delirious_owl@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I challenge you to recreate the Mona Lisa.

    My point is that these models are so complex that they’re closer to art than anything reproduce

    • sweng@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I don’t see your point? What is the “source” for Mona Lisa I would use? For LLMs I could reproduce them given the original inputs.

      Creating those inputs may be an art, but so could any piece of code. No one claims that code being elegant disqualifies it from being open source.

      • delirious_owl@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Are you sure that you can reproduce the model, given the same inputs? Reproducibility is a difficult property to achieve. I wouldn’t think LLMs are reproduce.

        • sweng@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          In theory, if you have the inputs, you have reproducible outputs, modulo perhaps some small deviations due to non-deterministic parallelism. But if those effects are large enough to make your model perform differently you already have big issues, no different than if a piece of software performs differently each time it is compiled.

          • delirious_owl@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            That’s the theory for some paradigms that were specifically designed to have the property of determinism.

            Most things in the world, even computers, are non-deterministic

            Nondeterminism isn’t necessarily a bad thing for systems like AI.