Asklemmy

49829 readers

448 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Can a stochastic process be considered 'automation'? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago by patatas@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Thinking specifically about AI here: if a process does not give a consistent or predictable output (and cannot reliably replace work done by humans) then can it really be considered "automation"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In practice there really is no incentive to avoid stochastic or pseudorandom elements, so don't hold your breath, haha. It's a pretty academic question if you could theoretically train an LLM without any randomness.

Thanks for writing that up, I learned a few things.

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

Exactly!

Thanks for reading :) Realised i was going on a bit of a rant, but thought why not keep going lol