AI is a tool and like all tools, it depends on how you use it and who uses it. Not everybody’s a software engineer. I talked to a software architect who was very happy about AI agents because they could design and architect a solution and let it be implemented right there. They didn’t need a software engineer (their words).
Just because you use an AI agent doesn’t make you dumber or make you turn off your mind. After being encouraged to use AI agents at work, I’m come to appreciate that even with them there are vastly different levels of usage.
You still need a software engineer to review the code. It’s naive to think that randomly generated code will work, and by “work” i mean not just do what it’s supposed to, but also handle edge cases and be secure.
AI is a tool and like all tools, it depends on how you use it and who uses it. Not everybody’s a software engineer. I talked to a software architect who was very happy about AI agents because they could design and architect a solution and let it be implemented right there. They didn’t need a software engineer (their words).
Just because you use an AI agent doesn’t make you dumber or make you turn off your mind. After being encouraged to use AI agents at work, I’m come to appreciate that even with them there are vastly different levels of usage.
You still need a software engineer to review the code. It’s naive to think that randomly generated code will work, and by “work” i mean not just do what it’s supposed to, but also handle edge cases and be secure.
If you think it’s random, you don’t understand LLMs.
So, in your learned opinion, it’s deterministic?
You sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole, but it turned up an interesting answer. Turns out they are nondeterministic, and why they aren’t deterministic is still an open question https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/defeating-nondeterminism-in-llm-inference/
Interesting, I had assumed that turning down temperature to 0, or hardcoding a seed would make LLM inference deterministic.
Especial after watching this video https://youtu.be/J9ZKxsPpRFk
I had thought I had seen both as well.
Skipped over the opening graphic on first read but just read it. Could they have picked a creepier sample sentence.
And you are perfectly deterministic? Because if you aren’t, by your own dichotomic logic, you’re random too.
So you say its not random, and now you do a 180 and say that randomness is a good thing?
I should have known you are a troll
🤣 Is English your second or third language? Your reading comprehension is pretty bad if you understood me doing a 180.