4 ms·
You are right about that but that's talking about what you generate but not what the output does. My point is that the compilers still designed to preserve sema
by truncate 5mo ago
You are right about that but that's talking about what you generate but not what the output does. My point is that the compilers still designed to preserve semantic equivalence. semantic equivalence makes sense here because there are semantics well defined for both input and output. That bit is supposed to be deterministic. If something breaks that that is a bug.
I just don't think comparing with compilers is a good argument.
- pjmlp 5mo agoSemantic equivalence breaks down with UB optimizations.
- truncate 5mo agoand hence reading code is unnecessary because how well LLMs understand and converts my prompts is almost equivalent to how well compilers can understand programs and turn into assembly. The prompts carry equal amount of ambiguity as the prompts I would write to define the behavior and want.