[dusted]

> "But AI chatbots are non-deterministic"

I think you need to re-math that.. They're entirely and totally deterministic.

You and I can spin up the same model, seed it with the same seed and they'll produce exactly the same nonsense to the same prompts, every single time.

[muzani]

They have a seed, but lots of randomness is injected, and that makes them non-deterministic by definition.

Certain applications have different levels of randomness, but the chatbots are usually put on higher levels of randomness, especially the entertainment ones.

You can make something that produces the same output every time. This is more commonly used for code autocompletes. So if you try to chat with Copilot, you'll likely get something more deterministic.

ChatGPT is probably toned down more than most, to avoid it from going off the rails. It is a bit sad that the AI most people have access too is rather "caged". The "jailbreak" techniques actually show AI closer to what it's like. Saying ChatGPT is deterministic is similar to saying a human in a call center is deterministic; they're following a SOP but that's not what they're really like.

[Timon3]

Can you expand on what further randomness is supposedly injected? Every single AI system which I have used has supported seeding, and seeding made very single one deterministic. I honestly don't know how you're supposed to have "randomness" in AI models if the RNG is seeded.

It's a different story if you use specific libraries like Xformers, but those introduce randomness as an artifact of their optimizations, not due to any magical non-seeded randomness.

[ted_bunny]

I wouldn't waste my time, personally. Most God in the Gaps arguments trace back to intellectual cowards, in my experience.