LLM output is literally randomly sampled.
I think what you might want to say is that LLM output is not uniformly random?
Or what am I misunderstanding?
I think what you might want to say is that LLM output is not uniformly random?
Or what am I misunderstanding?
On your die, if you colour one face in black and the other 5 faces in black, rolling it will still produce a random outcome. It's just that you get a 1:5 skew.
Or look at the probability that a given C-14 carbon isotope will decay tomorrow. As far as we can tell, that's as random as it physically gets. With the die you could theoretically try to run a physics simulation to predict how it rolls, but as far as we can tell, atomic decay is intrinsically random.
However a C-14 atom has about 1 in 3 million chance to decay on any given day.
I'm not sure if it's their intent, but I wonder if one could still consider these artifacts as "intentional", but not individual attention creating them, and rather an aggregate, soupy collective attention.
Obviously, important signal in the human experience is lost there, and we get a soupy middling sort of creation. But it's not random, as I believe the parent was pointing out.
EDIT: overall, I align with the article. am just thinking aloud about the contrarian positions, though not committed to them