this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
34 points (75.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49905 readers
492 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip -4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

it's inherently random, though, because it is working with things that have meanings and it cannot understand what the meanings are.

[–] derek@infosec.pub 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I agree that LLMs do not understand what it is they are predicting. At least no more than any other computer program "understands" its output. Which is to say: they are not conscious beings experiencing things.

This doesn't mean LLM output is random. It means they aren't thinking persons. You may have confused random with non-deterministic. LLMs are complex guessing machines that require a fudge-factor to produce meaningfully useful output. If the guesses were fully random then they'd have a significantly narrower field of practical applications.

[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I just don't understand why you think it needs to be "fully random" to be called random, when the output is in fact random. To me, when you can ask it the same question multiple times and receive different answers, it's random and unreliable. You may argue it only changes its answer randomly 10% of the time or whatever- it's still random. It doesn't matter if it only answers incorrectly 10% of the time or 5% of the time. Every time the answer is unreliable, because sometimes it changes its answer for no reason.

[–] derek@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago

You don't understand because you're either not paying attention or because you're trolling.

Random would be output like this:

Ostrich maypole dandy ironic. Great cucumber zebra!

Or this:

fhsjarbskzkdbsjzb kOdbg zkakfiebwkl

Random would be a password generator. Random would be utter nonsense. Incoherent. That's not what LLMs produce.

[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Still not random. Also not "intelligence" at all.

[–] gastroglizzy@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That depends on your definition of "random". They're non-deterministic; the same inputs will produce multiple outputs, and I think that's the point.

So, it depends whether you're referring to most people's definition of "random" or a mathematician's, because they often differ. One characteristic of "true randomness" (as defined in mathematical terms) is that eventually, by accident, patterns emerge. When people inevitably notice these patterns, the system appears less random.

Systems that check ahead for such patterns and adjust outcomes to avoid them are called "pseudo-random". Even though the outcomes are carefully calculated, they're perceived as being more random because they lack patterns.

Notable examples I can think of off the top of my head are Diablo 3 and the official Risk mobile app.

In Diablo 3, the drop tables started off using a truly random number generator. Some players noticed long stretches of no legendary drops, other players saw multiple legendaries in a row. People complained the drops were "rigged", so Blizzard altered the algorithm to be pseudo-random and players stopped ccomplaining. Now, if a certain amount of time goes by and you haven't had a legendary drop, you're guaranteed one. Once a legendary drops, you're guaranteed NOT to have one for a certain amount of time.

With Risk, same story with the dice rolling algorithm; players abjectly refused to accept the outcomes were random, despite the devs adding functionality to count your dice rolls and every players' showed a perfectly uniform distribution.

A mathematician would agree that an LLM isn't random because the next node in the chain is determined by the current nodes. But, since the algorithm won't generate the same output every time it's provided identical input (like a calculator), that satisfies most people's definition of the word "random".

[–] Fallibilist@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bold claim considering there is no agreed upon definition on what we even mean by the term intelligence.

  • The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
  • the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations
  • the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
  • the act of understanding
  • the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
  • It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
[–] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 1 points 15 hours ago

Interestingly, modern "AI" fits none of those definitions, either.