I might start to accept this LLM stuff when it can directly compile programs, i.e. not spit out a compiler command but take in source code and output linked object code in an executable format via token inference. And have it be correct.

Then, I'd start to trust in its ability to manage context and reliably work through complex tasks.

▲

groby_b 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

"I'll try this newfangled steel constructions if they actually forge each rebar on site".

You are saying that you'd trust the new and unproven technology more if it didn't rely on old and proven technology and instead reinvented everything from scratch. That's a somewhat illogical take.

▲

saltcured 4 days ago | parent [-]

Of course I was being facetious.

But by "correct", I meant that it would need to be able to work through such multi-level tasks as a compiler with semantic analysis, error checking, optimization, and code generation to reliably transcribe the source code. Not just emit lorum ipsum executables.

▲

groby_b 3 days ago | parent [-]

Why? Most engineers can't do that either. That's the whole point of having tools, that you don't need to stand their and mumble about "first principles".

It's about as useful as requiring your engineers to forge computers from sand on upwards.

	▲	saltcured 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Because I'm interested in acquiring more advanced but reliable tools, not simulations of error-prone humans.

▲

bigfishrunning 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem is verifying the output's correctness -- you could easily end up with insidious issues like this classic: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_Ref...

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]