3 ms·
Right ... While we do that, let's also retype the assembly code the compiler produces, do the linking manually and check you got the same result as the linker,
by redleader55 2mo ago
Right ... While we do that, let's also retype the assembly code the compiler produces, do the linking manually and check you got the same result as the linker, and then finally write the bytes yourself. Whether or not you manually bit-bang à la Morse code the bits to storage is left as an exercise to the reader.
- linuxhansl 2mo agoWhile I agree on some level, this not a great comparison. A compiler/linker/etc is an algorithmic, precise, verifiable, repeatable, debuggable, etc, etc, process. Using an LLM is an inherently stochastic process. It can is very, very helpful, but I think we are arriving at the realization that "vibe coding" wasn't the best idea - unless you are doing a PoC or demo. In any case, neither absolve you from understanding in detail what is going on. Maybe we'll get there, and we can fully trust what the LLM produces, but it seems we are not quite there, yet. Until then we'll have to understand everything the LLM produces and that's what the author is getting at.