*edit: sorry, misread that. My answer is not valid to your question.
original answer: because if you dont come up with these ints randomly they are sequential which can cause many unwanted situations where people can guess valid IDs and deduce things from that data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
Getting treatment or not is a decision. It is linked to pressure of suffering. You write that you did well and managed your life well. Awesome.
Other people feel extensive pressure of suffering and are not able to manage their lifes like you did. For those, professional treatment can be life saving.
I think it is pretty safe to assume that at least one third of Googles users will take what the chatbot says as gospel and will not look any deeper, just as users previously took the first search result as the verbatim truth.
That, I think, is a very interesting question!
I guess Google found itself in a situation where they had to jump on the AI bandwagon and add AI features to their search. Summaries existed before for certain topics, now they pop up always.
In the long run they probably need to integrate ads into these responses or they find another way to monetize the combination of "knowing about user intent" and "present matching answers".
I think there are different factors. One is that doping in cycling had big media coverage, especially in the 90ies to 2010s. Media uncovered that basically everyone in the race org knew that doping was involved. See for example Cofidis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofidis_(cycling_team) This adds to the perception that cycling is very prone to doping.
Whether it is so more than other sports... I don't know. As was mentioned before, in cycling as in other endurance sports, doping can push you very far.
Then there is the way the whole sport is organized. In the tour de france, privately sponsored teams compete against each other. I think this is very different to, say, a world championship. A country or trainer may have the interest of pushing their athletes beyond what is legal. But in a privately sponsored team, the pressure could be much higher.
But then the random seed is the source of randomness and not the training data. So the question "Can LLMs do randomness" would actually boil down to "Can PRNGs do randomness".
Sorry, I did not mean to downtalk the blog post :) I did not mean silly as in stupid. It's rather the title that I think is misleading. Can a LLM do randomness? Well, PRNGs are part of it so the question boils down whether PRNGs can do randomness. As mentioned here before, setting the temperature of say GPT-2 to zero makes the output deterministic. I was 99% sure that you as the author knew about this :)
This is silly. Behind an LLM sits a deterministic algorithm. So no, it is not possible without ibserting randomness by other means into the algo, for example by setting temperatures for gradient descent.
Why are all these posts and news about LLMs so uninformed? This is human built technology. You can actually read up how these things work. And yet they are treated as if it were an alien species that must be examined by sociological means and methods where it is not necessary. Grinds my gears every time :D
I sometimes feel like blogging in the developer world has become something that you copy from the great masters of the craft. Many famous devs blog about the craft. Same in the tech entrepreneur bubble.
i remember times when blogging was as casual as having an instagram account. Then there were times were you would blog stuff that could potentially be helpful to others. Like a problem with configuring our linux audio device that ou were finall able to fix.
For all these topics there are now established communities. The blogosphere is now divided into company blogs (for SEO, maybe also to tell a story or amuse people), and peesonal blogs. And of these personal blogs, some try to copy their role models in writing and thinking (a good way to become inauthentic and lose touch with yourself) and a minority manages to write whatever comes to their mind, no matter how awesome it reads and how many people will like the idea that is transported.
> In some sense, AGI is just another tool in this ever-taller scaffolding of human progress we are building together. In another sense, it is the beginning of something for which it’s hard not to say “this time it’s different”; the economic growth in front of us looks astonishing, and we can now imagine a world where we cure all diseases, have much more time to enjoy with our families, and can fully realize our creative potential
yeah, right. What world is this guy living in? An idealistic one? Will AI equally spread the profits of that economic growth he is talking about? I only see companies getting by on less menpower and doing fine, while poor people stay poor. Bravo. Well thought trhough, guy who now sells "AI".
That! Moving your legs to avoid sitting all day seems fine but putting yourself in an unergonomic position like on a road bike seems counter productive. Your neck and lower back will probably tighten up badly over time.
original answer: because if you dont come up with these ints randomly they are sequential which can cause many unwanted situations where people can guess valid IDs and deduce things from that data. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem