4 ms·
> it isn't entirely bluster "Development" is effectively translating abstractions of an intended operation to machine language. What I find kind of funny abou
by nkozyra 2y ago
> it isn't entirely bluster
"Development" is effectively translating abstractions of an intended operation to machine language.
What I find kind of funny about the current state is we're using large language models to, like, spit out React or Python code. This use case is obviously an optimization to WASM, so a little closer to the metal, but at what point to programs (effectively suites of operations) just cut out the middleman entirely?
- dboreham 2y agoI've wondered about this too. The LLM could just write machine code. But now a human can't easily review it. But perhaps TDD makes that ok. But now the tests need to be written in a human readable language so they can be checked. Or do they? And if the LLM is always right why does the code need to be tested?
- nkozyra 2y agoAt a certain point I don't see why a human needs to be in the loop at all. But I suppose that's the most dystopian part of it all.
- kragen 2y agoMaybe the human has the money.
- kragen 2y agoThe LLM might be terrible at writing machine code directly. The kinds of mistakes I see GPT-4 making in Python, PostScript, or JS would be a much bigger problem in machine code. It "gets confused" and "makes mistakes" in ways very similar to humans. I haven't had a chance to try DeepSeek R1 yet.