4 ms·

Do you trust the assembly your compiler puts out? The machine code your assembler puts out? The virtual machine it runs on? Thousands of lines of code you've ne

Do you trust the assembly your compiler puts out? The machine code your assembler puts out? The virtual machine it runs on? Thousands of lines of code you've never looked at...

scottLobster 7mo ago
None of that is generated by an LLM prone to hallucination and is perfectly deterministic unless there's a hardware problem. And yes, I have occasionally run into compiler bugs in my career. That's one reason we test.
- notAnAIBot768 7mo ago
  > None of that is generated by an LLM How did you verify that? > prone to hallucination You know humans can hallucinate? > is perfectly deterministic We agree then that you can verify, test, and trust the deterministic code an LLM produces without ever looking at it. > That's one reason we test That's one way we can trust and verify code produced by an LLM. You can't stop doing all the other things that aren't coding. I get there's a difference. Shitty code can be produced by LLMs or humans. LLMs really can pump out the shitty code. I just think the argument that you cant trust code you haven't viewed is not a good argument. I very much trust a lot of code I've never seen, and yes I've been bitten by it too. Not trying to be an ass, more trying to figure out how im going to deal for the next decade before retirement age. Uts going to be a lot of testing and verification I guess
  - xigoi 7mo ago
    > How did you verify that? The compiler works without an internet connection and requires too little resources to be secretly running a local model. (Also, you can’t inspect the source code.) > You know humans can hallucinate? We are talking about compilers… > We agree then that you can verify, test, and trust the deterministic code an LLM produces without ever looking at it. Unlike a compiler, an LLM does not produce code in a deterministic way, so it’s not guaranteed to do what the input tells it to.
    - tqwhite 7mo ago
      It is for me because the LLM makes my ability to evaluate super, too.
bandrami 7mo ago
"Trust"? God no. That's why I have a debugger
- bandrami 7mo ago
  Also you really do have to know how the underlying assembly integer operations work or you can get yourself into a world of hurt. Do they not still teach that in CS classes?
bobanrocky 7mo ago
Compiler theory and implementation is based on mathematical and logic principles. And hence much more provable and trustworthy than a LLM thats stitching together pieces of text based on ‘training’

Do you trust the assembly your compiler puts out? The machine code your assembler puts out? The virtual machine it runs on? Thousands of lines of code you've never looked at...

scottLobster 7mo ago

None of that is generated by an LLM prone to hallucination and is perfectly deterministic unless there's a hardware problem. And yes, I have occasionally run into compiler bugs in my career. That's one reason we test.

notAnAIBot768 7mo ago
> None of that is generated by an LLM How did you verify that? > prone to hallucination You know humans can hallucinate? > is perfectly deterministic We agree then that you can verify, test, and trust the deterministic code an LLM produces without ever looking at it. > That's one reason we test That's one way we can trust and verify code produced by an LLM. You can't stop doing all the other things that aren't coding. I get there's a difference. Shitty code can be produced by LLMs or humans. LLMs really can pump out the shitty code. I just think the argument that you cant trust code you haven't viewed is not a good argument. I very much trust a lot of code I've never seen, and yes I've been bitten by it too. Not trying to be an ass, more trying to figure out how im going to deal for the next decade before retirement age. Uts going to be a lot of testing and verification I guess
- xigoi 7mo ago
  > How did you verify that? The compiler works without an internet connection and requires too little resources to be secretly running a local model. (Also, you can’t inspect the source code.) > You know humans can hallucinate? We are talking about compilers… > We agree then that you can verify, test, and trust the deterministic code an LLM produces without ever looking at it. Unlike a compiler, an LLM does not produce code in a deterministic way, so it’s not guaranteed to do what the input tells it to.
  - tqwhite 7mo ago
    It is for me because the LLM makes my ability to evaluate super, too.

bandrami 7mo ago

"Trust"? God no. That's why I have a debugger

bandrami 7mo ago
Also you really do have to know how the underlying assembly integer operations work or you can get yourself into a world of hurt. Do they not still teach that in CS classes?

bobanrocky 7mo ago

Compiler theory and implementation is based on mathematical and logic principles. And hence much more provable and trustworthy than a LLM thats stitching together pieces of text based on ‘training’