You make a good point about capability. However, I’m trying to say that in practical capability, I do know exactly what compiler flags were enabled (it’s whatever the Makefile passed, which is whatever configure determined, the whole thing is checked in as source code), but the exact model+seed isn’t being recorded for this Linux changes.
To make the compiler analogy, we should be saving model, seed, prompt, etc and then the LLM output becomes the equivalent of the compiled code. I think that’s an extremely defensible argument, while “bet you can’t write assembly!” is not.
For local AI image generation, often the input parameters are indeed recorded into the output image. You can then use the metadata of the image to get the parameters and re-generate the exact same image. This is the definition of determinism in computer science.
Is that what Linus is talking about in the OP? I was sure this was about code-generation. If he’s talking about images and recording the metadata then I agree with you.
You make a good point about capability. However, I’m trying to say that in practical capability, I do know exactly what compiler flags were enabled (it’s whatever the Makefile passed, which is whatever configure determined, the whole thing is checked in as source code), but the exact model+seed isn’t being recorded for this Linux changes.
To make the compiler analogy, we should be saving model, seed, prompt, etc and then the LLM output becomes the equivalent of the compiled code. I think that’s an extremely defensible argument, while “bet you can’t write assembly!” is not.
For local AI image generation, often the input parameters are indeed recorded into the output image. You can then use the metadata of the image to get the parameters and re-generate the exact same image. This is the definition of determinism in computer science.
Is that what Linus is talking about in the OP? I was sure this was about code-generation. If he’s talking about images and recording the metadata then I agree with you.