3 ms·
The difference is that compilers involve rules we can enumerate, adjust, etc. Consider calculators: Their consistency and adherence to requirements was necessa
by Terr_ 8mo ago
The difference is that compilers involve rules we can enumerate, adjust, etc.
Consider calculators: Their consistency and adherence to requirements was necessary for adoption. Nobody would be using them if they gave unpredictable wrong answers, or where calculations involving 420 and 69 somehow keep yielding 5318008. (To be read upside-down, of course.)
- aaronbrethorst 8mo agonice. 3x.
- h3lp 8mo agoThe compilers used to be unreliable too, e.g. at higher optimizations and such. People worked on them and they got better. I think LLMs will get better, as well.
- foxes 8mo agoBut thats the point, an llm is a vastly different object to a calculator. Its a new type of tool for better or worse based on probabilities, distributions. If you can internalise that fact and look at it like having a probable answer rather than an exact answer it makes sense. Calculators cant have a stab at writing an entire c compiler. A lot of people cant either or takes a lot of iteration anyway, no one one shotted complicated code before llms either. I feel discussion shouldnt be about how they work as the fundamental objection, rather the costs and impacts they have.