3 ms·
This reduction of everything to stochasticity is silly. Or, to put it differently: Do you accept a value with some error appearing in your bank account on salar
by gspr 2mo ago
This reduction of everything to stochasticity is silly. Or, to put it differently: Do you accept a value with some error appearing in your bank account on salary day?
We have plenty of systems where complete accuracy is the only acceptable thing. Computers are great for such things. Until we all get caught up in a way of delusion and start writing those systems as natural prose passed through an improperly understood stochastic machine.
- adjfasn47573 2mo agoI've never said or implied what you're arguing against right now. An LLM building software benefits from using a formal language, formal tests or having a formal specification in a similar way we do. Everything you can formalize into something, so you have certainty about stuff, is always a benefit. I wasn't comparing exact science with LLMs. I was comparing current messy review processes of code performed by humans with future messy review processes of code likely performed by LLMs. If you find a way to convert code reviews into a fully formalized process, then this is clearly the winner. If the LLMs find a way to do that, same. If you find a way to formalize the process of driving through any street in any situation, then this is clearly the winner. Until then, driving stays messy and stochastic.