4 ms·
> Also worth noting, early compilers (all through the 1980s) routinely had bugs that generated incorrect code. Incorrect. They had bugs that generated incorrec
by lelanthran 6mo ago
> Also worth noting, early compilers (all through the 1980s) routinely had bugs that generated incorrect code.
Incorrect. They had bugs that generated incorrect code. They didn't routinely have bugs that generated incorrect code :-/
And the bugs they had were reproducible.
- renticulous 6mo agoDidn't someone say LLMs memorize Harry Potter books? You can't have it both ways.
- lelanthran 6mo ago> Didn't someone say LLMs memorize Harry Potter books? You can't have it both ways. What both ways? You can't consistently get it to output Harry Potter verbatim. That's my point - not reproducible.
- renticulous 6mo agoThere are many ways to write a forloop. Why do you need exact reproducibility for achieving a task?
- customguy 6mo agoNot "exact reproducibility", but simple reproducibility at all. You need that to fix bugs, improve things and reason about them.
- lelanthran 6mo ago> There are many ways to write a forloop. Why do you need exact reproducibility for achieving a task? Didn't you just claim above, with the Harry Potter angle, that it is reproducible?