|
|
|
|
|
|
by codingdave
179 days ago
|
|
|
> We assume that if we generate an embedding and store it, the "memory" is stable. Why do you assume that? In my experience, the "memory" is never stable. You seem to have higher expectations of reliability than would be reasonable. If you have proven that unreliability, that proof is actually interesting. But seems less like a bug, and more of an observation of how things work. |
|
|
If sqlite returned slightly different rows depending on whether the server was running an Intel or AMD chip, we wouldn't call that "an observation of how things work." We would call it data corruption.
We have normalized this "unreliability" in AI because we treat embeddings as fuzzy probabilistic magic. But at the storage layer, they are just numbers.
If I am building a search bar? Sure, 0.99 vs 0.98 doesn't matter.
But if I am building a decentralized consensus network where 100 nodes need to sign a state root, or a regulatory audit trail for a financial agent, "memory drift" isn't a quirk, it's a system failure.
My "proof" isn't just that it breaks; it's that it doesn't have to. I replaced the f32 math with a fixed-point kernel (Valori) and got bit-perfect stability across architectures.
Non-determinism is not a law of physics. It’s just a tradeoff we got lazy about.