4 ms·

All those layers are stable and deterministic. You can open it up and check, in most cases, how the upper layer calls the lower layer, should it be necessary.

by klabb3 2y ago

All those layers are stable and deterministic. You can open it up and check, in most cases, how the upper layer calls the lower layer, should it be necessary. If you have an LLM between you and the code, there is not even such a thing as ”source code”, only a history of prompts. You can’t check in your prompts in git, and re-generate the same code later. In fact, it’s more like the antithesis of the reproducible builds movement. It’s introducing a proprietary networked high latency chaos agent into the critical path.

petercooper 2y ago
I accept your points today, but I'm optimistic this problem will be resolved in the mid-term. I just feel some of the arguments smell similar to concerns levelled at the earliest compiler developers about the perils of abstraction. Now we gleefully stack layer upon layer with most developers being unable to grok more than a layer below their choice of abstraction (if they're good!) I am extremely LLM-optimistic though and largely in favor of abstractions, so that fuels my viewpoint. I still remember my dad, an embedded developer in the 90s-00s, ranting about how many people were starting to use 'inefficient and unpredictable' C compilers than whatever assembly he was using. I reckon he'd be appalled to learn that now even assembly isn't always a reliable model of what's really happening on the CPU thanks to microcode and optimizations.. ;-)
- ConspiracyFact 2y ago
  The thing is, going from a high-level scripting language to a natural-language interface is a massive jump. The difference between a python script and a hand-crafted executable is essentially nothing in comparison. I don’t think that a single technology is going to bridge that yawning gap overnight.
  - roland35 2y ago
    Plus I feel like at least compilers are at least deterministic? AI is not repeatable or provable at all
- klabb3 2y ago
  > I just feel some of the arguments smell similar to concerns levelled at the earliest compiler developers about the perils of abstraction Like you, I am a sucker for abstraction (often to my detriment). I just don’t see any resemblance between an LLM layer and abstraction, aside from that they both introduce complexity. I guess that abstraction superficially ”hides” its inner workings but this is a misnomer, it’s never actually hidden, it’s only claimed that you don’t need to look behind the curtain (but you can, and then you can see exactly what’s going on). > I'm optimistic this problem will be resolved in the mid-term Which one? Stability? Assume you can get open source models running locally and with no floating point non-determinism. Now you have some narrow sense local stability, yes. For exactly the same version of the LLM compiler and same input (all prompt history), you can reproduce the result. But this is not enough. If you roll a new version of the compiler (meaning new training data or algorithm), all previous responses are invalidated. So how would you maintain backwards compatibility? With abstractions OTOH (like say C++), you don’t check in the generated assembly or binary. It’s enough to check in the C++ code, the rest is derived directly. When C++ releases their new foot-machinegun feature, you simply update your compiler and your old code works. My point is that LLMs are not engineering products. They are closer to organic in the sense they act in the moment, and by necessity they are non-stable with respect to small variations in input and training. I heard this good quote from this researcher at anthropic who claimed we don't program the (neural) networks, we ”grow” them.
- skydhash 2y ago
  > I still remember my dad, an embedded developer in the 90s-00s, ranting about how many people were starting to use 'inefficient and unpredictable' C compilers than whatever assembly he was using I remember reading that C compilers were buggy/generated lots of instructions. He may have a point back then
ConspiracyFact 2y ago
> It’s introducing a proprietary networked high latency chaos agent into the critical path. Well (and amusingly) said. The same (or at least a very similar) problem exists at the other end of the pipeline, i.e., whenever a user has to use a natural-language interface to get software to do something they want. Are we really going to tell our AI assistants to take complex actions on our behalf in the real world, and then just sit back? Are we really going to do this when money is involved?

by klabb3 2y ago

petercooper 2y ago

I accept your points today, but I'm optimistic this problem will be resolved in the mid-term. I just feel some of the arguments smell similar to concerns levelled at the earliest compiler developers about the perils of abstraction. Now we gleefully stack layer upon layer with most developers being unable to grok more than a layer below their choice of abstraction (if they're good!) I am extremely LLM-optimistic though and largely in favor of abstractions, so that fuels my viewpoint. I still remember my dad, an embedded developer in the 90s-00s, ranting about how many people were starting to use 'inefficient and unpredictable' C compilers than whatever assembly he was using. I reckon he'd be appalled to learn that now even assembly isn't always a reliable model of what's really happening on the CPU thanks to microcode and optimizations.. ;-)

ConspiracyFact 2y ago
The thing is, going from a high-level scripting language to a natural-language interface is a massive jump. The difference between a python script and a hand-crafted executable is essentially nothing in comparison. I don’t think that a single technology is going to bridge that yawning gap overnight.
- roland35 2y ago
  Plus I feel like at least compilers are at least deterministic? AI is not repeatable or provable at all
klabb3 2y ago
> I just feel some of the arguments smell similar to concerns levelled at the earliest compiler developers about the perils of abstraction Like you, I am a sucker for abstraction (often to my detriment). I just don’t see any resemblance between an LLM layer and abstraction, aside from that they both introduce complexity. I guess that abstraction superficially ”hides” its inner workings but this is a misnomer, it’s never actually hidden, it’s only claimed that you don’t need to look behind the curtain (but you can, and then you can see exactly what’s going on). > I'm optimistic this problem will be resolved in the mid-term Which one? Stability? Assume you can get open source models running locally and with no floating point non-determinism. Now you have some narrow sense local stability, yes. For exactly the same version of the LLM compiler and same input (all prompt history), you can reproduce the result. But this is not enough. If you roll a new version of the compiler (meaning new training data or algorithm), all previous responses are invalidated. So how would you maintain backwards compatibility? With abstractions OTOH (like say C++), you don’t check in the generated assembly or binary. It’s enough to check in the C++ code, the rest is derived directly. When C++ releases their new foot-machinegun feature, you simply update your compiler and your old code works. My point is that LLMs are not engineering products. They are closer to organic in the sense they act in the moment, and by necessity they are non-stable with respect to small variations in input and training. I heard this good quote from this researcher at anthropic who claimed we don't program the (neural) networks, we ”grow” them.
skydhash 2y ago
> I still remember my dad, an embedded developer in the 90s-00s, ranting about how many people were starting to use 'inefficient and unpredictable' C compilers than whatever assembly he was using I remember reading that C compilers were buggy/generated lots of instructions. He may have a point back then

ConspiracyFact 2y ago

> It’s introducing a proprietary networked high latency chaos agent into the critical path. Well (and amusingly) said. The same (or at least a very similar) problem exists at the other end of the pipeline, i.e., whenever a user has to use a natural-language interface to get software to do something they want. Are we really going to tell our AI assistants to take complex actions on our behalf in the real world, and then just sit back? Are we really going to do this when money is involved?