Gregory's Server
@dkalintsev @inthehands There's a huge human element here in terms of the ability of the attorneys and their experts to explain that part of the tech and its relevance, the ability of the judge/jury to understand and interpret that, and how persuasive those explanations are as to convincing the judge/jury to favor one side or another.
|
2 comments
 @dkalintsev @skysailor I suspect all this is a bit of a red herring. With a machine model, you can do things you could •never• do with an HR dept: Run it on 10 million resumes. Run it on repeatedly on the same resumes, altering on variable. Random? Run it on each 1000x. It’s a kind of broad testing that, should a court allow, would make many of the questions above evaporate. |
@skysailor @inthehands oh, I can see that.
Regarding the seed, there would be one used for training and then another for inference.
From my admittedly limited and slightly orthogonal experience - I've played with image gen models, not language ones: you can get the same output from a given trained model if you feed it the same prompt and the same seed. But, you can't train another copy of that model, even using the same source data, training parameters, and seed. Your "supposedly same" model will generate completely different outputs, even with the same prompt and inference seed. Sigh. This is all such an alchemy. :(
@skysailor @inthehands oh, I can see that.
Regarding the seed, there would be one used for training and then another for inference.
From my admittedly limited and slightly orthogonal experience - I've played with image gen models, not language ones: you can get the same output from a given trained model if you feed it the same prompt and the same seed. But, you can't train another copy of that model, even using the same source data, training parameters, and seed. Your "supposedly same" model will...