> We cannot really be confident that an LLM will produce correct output based on correct input. There are 2 things at play here, one is LLM with human in the l

> We cannot really be confident that an LLM will produce correct output based on correct input. There are 2 things at play here, one is LLM with human in the loop, in which it's just a tool for programmers to do the same thing they have been doing, and the other is LLM as black box automaton. For the former, it's not a problem that the tool is undeterministic, we are double checking the results and add our manual labour anyway. The fact that a tool can fail sometimes is an unsurprising fact of engineering. I think the criticism in this chain of comment applies more to the latter, but even it always has values to non-tech people, just like how no-code approaches are, however shitty it looks to us software enfineers.