3 ms·
This has happened before. When we went from assembler to compilers, this logic would have said, "So instead of being creative and finding ways to avoid hand-co
by AnimalMuppet 2y ago
This has happened before.
When we went from assembler to compilers, this logic would have said, "So instead of being creative and finding ways to avoid hand-coding loops, you look for a way to spit out copies of loops faster." And the answer is, "Yeah, I do! I want the compiler to write the loop for me and get all the jumps right so I don't have to worry about it! Getting the jumps for the loop right is incidental to what I'm actually trying to write; I've got better things to spend my time on."
Note well: I am not arguing that AI will produce good code rather than multiple layers of garbage. I am merely saying that this particular argument is weak.
- codr7 2y agoYou're comparing an LLM to a compiler, which doesn't make much sense to me. If my compiler occasionally output the recipe for vegan pancakes instead of working code I would definitely think differently of it.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoI'm comparing an LLM to a compiler to the degree that they automate much of the writing of the tedious parts of code, rather than finding ways to reduce the amount of such code written (and therefore to the degree warranted by the argument in your previous post). I will admit that compilers don't hallucinate much.
- xigoi 2y agoThe difference is that a high-level programming language abstracts away the duplication, whereas an LLM does not.
- player1234 2y agoComparing current AI to a compiler is a dogwhistle for white supremacy.