5 ms·

Using LLMs as compilers is unwise. Ultimately software must be configured or written by humans, even if there are layers and layers of software in between us an

Using LLMs as compilers is unwise. Ultimately software must be configured or written by humans, even if there are layers and layers of software in between us and 'the code', and that act of configuration/writing is programming.

ldjkfkdsjnv 2y ago
I think alot of the fastest moving and innovative companies right now are generating most code with ai. the ones who ignore this will be left behind
- whattheheckheck 2y ago
  Which ones stick out the most to you?
pjmlp 2y ago
That was the same argument folks used against high level languages when Assembly was king. It will come, even if we are a couple of years away.
- userbinator 2y ago
  At least compilers are deterministic and their operation can be easily inspected.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Said someone that never researched miscompilation issues or UB. They are mostly deterministic. LLMs can also provide the equivalent of an -S switch.
    - Yoric 2y ago
      You are correct, of course, but the general consensus is that (in languages other than C++) compilers are largely close enough to deterministic that the difference doesn't matter. LLMs, by design, don't even attempt to go in this direction. Not entirely sure what I'd do with an LLM -S switch. Debug the output/intermediate representation of the LLM, knowing that the next time I press "enter", it's probably going to give me an entirely different output?
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        It won't be much different from human computers in that regard, isn't after all what everyone is looking for as replacement?
        Yoric 2y ago
        Probably, yes. But then, aren't we all happy that we moved from human computers and to electronic computers with programming languages and compilers?
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      The first is a bug in the compiler, the second is a bug in your code.
      - pjmlp 2y ago
        Not everyone agrees, see Linus.
- Yoric 2y ago
  I don't think LLMs themselves (at least what we currently call LLMs, with the Transformer-based architecture) will provide that. They're too prone to hallucinations. However, I do think that they will pave the way towards another technology that will work better. Possibly some hybrid neurosymbolic approach. There are many researchers working on this, and the current hype around LLM will help fund them. Sadly, it will also add considerable amounts of noise that might hinder their ability to demonstrate the usefulness of their solutions, so no clue when that future happens, if it does.

ldjkfkdsjnv 2y ago

I think alot of the fastest moving and innovative companies right now are generating most code with ai. the ones who ignore this will be left behind

whattheheckheck 2y ago
Which ones stick out the most to you?

pjmlp 2y ago

That was the same argument folks used against high level languages when Assembly was king. It will come, even if we are a couple of years away.

userbinator 2y ago
At least compilers are deterministic and their operation can be easily inspected.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Said someone that never researched miscompilation issues or UB. They are mostly deterministic. LLMs can also provide the equivalent of an -S switch.
  - Yoric 2y ago
    You are correct, of course, but the general consensus is that (in languages other than C++) compilers are largely close enough to deterministic that the difference doesn't matter. LLMs, by design, don't even attempt to go in this direction. Not entirely sure what I'd do with an LLM -S switch. Debug the output/intermediate representation of the LLM, knowing that the next time I press "enter", it's probably going to give me an entirely different output?
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      It won't be much different from human computers in that regard, isn't after all what everyone is looking for as replacement?
      - Yoric 2y ago
        Probably, yes. But then, aren't we all happy that we moved from human computers and to electronic computers with programming languages and compilers?
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    The first is a bug in the compiler, the second is a bug in your code.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Not everyone agrees, see Linus.
Yoric 2y ago
I don't think LLMs themselves (at least what we currently call LLMs, with the Transformer-based architecture) will provide that. They're too prone to hallucinations. However, I do think that they will pave the way towards another technology that will work better. Possibly some hybrid neurosymbolic approach. There are many researchers working on this, and the current hype around LLM will help fund them. Sadly, it will also add considerable amounts of noise that might hinder their ability to demonstrate the usefulness of their solutions, so no clue when that future happens, if it does.