4 ms·

That's kinda missing the level of control. Inherently both ASM and programming produce the same output, "programming" just traded the generality of ASM for verb

That's kinda missing the level of control. Inherently both ASM and programming produce the same output, "programming" just traded the generality of ASM for verbose and diverse functions. The auto code generators fundamentally don't understand the problems they work on, so any solutions they create will be incidental.

fragmede 4y ago
What is "understanding"? Compilers aren't sentient and can't fundamentally understand anything, either though.
- iterateofen 4y ago
  I would argue compilers have a perfect “understanding” as the input:output is generally 1:1. One input almost always produces the same output. It’s just that the input is extremely limited by a set of predefined rules. The same can’t be said about code generators like this that are producing millions of possibilites and using heuristics to guess which program will have the most success.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Reproducibility is a big deal. With the Stable Diffusion model as a publicly available test model, using the exact same inputs, especially the seed value for the random number generator, should get you the same picture on subsequent runs or on a different machine. Whether or not ChatGPT is evolving with our input is a secret to make that not the same for their model is known only to OpenAI.
majormajor 4y ago
> Inherently both ASM and programming produce the same output, "programming" just traded the generality of ASM for verbose and diverse functions. I wouldn't say the output is that similar. You get wildly different bug types, bug type distributions, and edge cases/failure modes in different languages. Does "Python" (the internal implementations of the method names you type) understand the problem it's working on more than the generator on the other side of a coding prompt?

4 ms·

That's kinda missing the level of control. Inherently both ASM and programming produce the same output, "programming" just traded the generality of ASM for verb

by SQueeeeeL 4y ago

fragmede 4y ago
What is "understanding"? Compilers aren't sentient and can't fundamentally understand anything, either though.
- iterateofen 4y ago
  I would argue compilers have a perfect “understanding” as the input:output is generally 1:1. One input almost always produces the same output. It’s just that the input is extremely limited by a set of predefined rules. The same can’t be said about code generators like this that are producing millions of possibilites and using heuristics to guess which program will have the most success.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Reproducibility is a big deal. With the Stable Diffusion model as a publicly available test model, using the exact same inputs, especially the seed value for the random number generator, should get you the same picture on subsequent runs or on a different machine. Whether or not ChatGPT is evolving with our input is a secret to make that not the same for their model is known only to OpenAI.
majormajor 4y ago
> Inherently both ASM and programming produce the same output, "programming" just traded the generality of ASM for verbose and diverse functions. I wouldn't say the output is that similar. You get wildly different bug types, bug type distributions, and edge cases/failure modes in different languages. Does "Python" (the internal implementations of the method names you type) understand the problem it's working on more than the generator on the other side of a coding prompt?