4 ms·

I started using a C compiler for coding about 30 years ago. It's been great, but the feeling of skill atrophy is very real. I probably couldn't write useful

I started using a C compiler for coding about 30 years ago. It's been great, but the feeling of skill atrophy is very real. I probably couldn't write useful code in x86 assembly any more, at least not without refreshing my memory first. And you know what? That's just peachy keen. I don't need to write x86 assembly anymore. In fact, these days I do a lot of coding for ARM platforms, but I never learned ARM assembly at all. So it would take more than just a refresher course to bring me up to speed in that. I don't anticipate any such need, fortunately. So... if I still need to write C in 10 years, why in the world would I consider that a good thing? Things in this business are supposed to progress toward higher and higher levels of abstraction.

BeetleB 2y ago
I have extremely high faith that the C compiler will produce very reliable x86 assembly code. I am extremely pessimistic that LLMs will ever reach that level of reliability. Or even close. They are a great helper, but that's all they'll be.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  What are some examples of prompts and responses that have made you pessimistic about the technology's ability to improve? Reliability has gotten insanely better over the past couple of years, and it's still improving.
  - BeetleB 2y ago
    > What are some examples of prompts and responses that have made you pessimistic about the technology's ability to improve? I'm not saying it won't improve. I think its lack of determinism puts a natural upper bound on reliability - something we don't have to worry about with compilers. As for examples: Oh wow. As much as I love and use them for coding, almost every project I work on has cases of coming up with complex solutions to a task that do not work, where 1-2 lines of (simple!) code would have solved the problem. It's not just that it fails, but it kept failing even after I told it how to do it right. Sometimes it does a great job and solves a hard problem for me. Other times I lose a lot of time getting it to do beginner level stuff. It has huge gaps/blind spots.

BeetleB 2y ago

I have extremely high faith that the C compiler will produce very reliable x86 assembly code. I am extremely pessimistic that LLMs will ever reach that level of reliability. Or even close. They are a great helper, but that's all they'll be.

CamperBob2 2y ago
What are some examples of prompts and responses that have made you pessimistic about the technology's ability to improve? Reliability has gotten insanely better over the past couple of years, and it's still improving.
- BeetleB 2y ago
  > What are some examples of prompts and responses that have made you pessimistic about the technology's ability to improve? I'm not saying it won't improve. I think its lack of determinism puts a natural upper bound on reliability - something we don't have to worry about with compilers. As for examples: Oh wow. As much as I love and use them for coding, almost every project I work on has cases of coming up with complex solutions to a task that do not work, where 1-2 lines of (simple!) code would have solved the problem. It's not just that it fails, but it kept failing even after I told it how to do it right. Sometimes it does a great job and solves a hard problem for me. Other times I lose a lot of time getting it to do beginner level stuff. It has huge gaps/blind spots.