> What other tools in software sometimes work and sometimes don't that you find remotely acceptable? Other people. Seriously, all that advice about not anthro

> What other tools in software sometimes work and sometimes don't that you find remotely acceptable? Other people. Seriously, all that advice about not anthropomorphizing computers is taken way too seriously now, and is doing a number on the industry. LLMs are not a replacement for compilers or other "classical" tools - they're replacement for people. The whole thing that makes LLMs useful is their ability to understand what some text means - whether or not it's written in natural language or code. But that task is inherently unreliable because the problem itself is ill-specified; the theoretically optimal solution boils down to "be a simulated equivalent of a contemporary human", and that still wouldn't be perfectly reliable. LLMs are able to trivially do tasks in programming that no "classical" tools can, tasks that defy theoretical/formal specification, because they're trained to mimic humans. Plenty of such tasks cannot be done to the standards you and many others expect of software, because they're NP-complete or even equivalent to halting problem. LLMs look at those and go, "sure, this may be provably not solvable, but actually the user meant X therefore the result is Y", and succeed with that reliably enough to be useful. Like, take automated refactoring in dynamic languages. Any nontrivial ones are not doable "classically", because you can't guarantee there aren't references to the thing you're moving/renaming that are generated on the fly by eval() + string concatenation, etc. As a programmer, you may know the correct result, because you can understand the meaning and intent behind the code, the conceptual patterns underpinning its design. DAG walkers and SAT solvers don't. But LLMs do.