Comment by Wowfunhappy

That's the wrong distinction, and bringing it up causes pointless arguments like are in the replies.

The right distinction is that assemblers and compilers have semantics and an idea of correctness. If your input doesn't lead to a correct program, you can find the problem. You can examine the input and determine whether it is correct. If the input is wrong, it's theoretically possible to find the problem and fix it without ever running the assembler/compiler.

Can you examine a prompt for an LLM and determine whether it's right or wrong without running it through the model? The idea is ludicrous. Prompts cannot be source code. LLMs are fundamentally different from programs that convert source code into machine code.

This is something like "deterministic" in the colloquial sense, but not at all in the technical sense. And that's where these arguments come from. I think it's better to sidestep them and focus on the important part: compilers and assemblers are intended to be predictable in terms of semantics of code. And when they aren't, it's a compiler bug that needs to be fixed, not an input that you should try rephrasing. LLMs are not intended to be predictable at all.

So focus on predictability, not determinism. It might forestall some of these arguments that get lost in the weeds and miss the point entirely.

LLMs are deterministic. So far every vendor is giving them random noise in addition to your prompt though. They don't like have a free will or a soul or anything, you feed them exactly the same tokens exactly the same tokens will come out.

Missed the part?

> Most likely we will still need some kind of formalisation tools to tame natural language uncertainties, however most certainly they won't be Python/Rust like