That’s a strange argument. There are plenty of stochastic processes that have perfectly acceptable guarantees. A good example is Karger’s min-cut algorithm. You might not know what you get on any given single run, but you know EXACTLY what you’re going to get when you crank up the number of trials.
Nobody can tell you what you are going to get when you run an LLM once. Nobody can tell you what you’re going to get when you run it N times. There are, in fact, no guarantees at all. Nobody even really knows why it can solve some problems and why it can’t solve other except maybe it memorized the answer at some point. But this is not how they are marketed.
They are marketed as wondrous inventions that can SOLVE EVERYTHING. This is obviously not true. You can verify it yourself, with a simple deterministic problem: generate an arithmetic expression of length N. As you increase N, the probability that an LLM can solve it drops to zero.
Ok, fine. This kind of problem is not a good fit for an LLM. But which is? And after you’ve found a problem that seems like a good fit, how do you know? Did you test it systematically? The big LLM vendors are fudging the numbers. They’re testing on the training set, they’re using ad hoc measurements and so on. But don’t take my word for it. There’s lots of great literature out there that probes the eccentricities of these models; for some reason this work rarely makes its way into the HN echo chamber.
Now I’m not saying these things are broken and useless. Far from it. I use them every day. But I don’t trust anything they produce, because there are no guarantees, and I have been burned many times. If you have not been burned, you’re either exceptionally lucky, you are asking it to solve homework assignments, or you are ignoring the pain.
Excel bugs are not the same thing. Most of those problems can be found trivially. You can find them because Excel is a language with clear rules (just not clear to those particular users). The problem with Excel is that people aren’t looking for bugs.