Nondeterminism indeed does not imply non-correctness.

All ten outputs might be valid. All ten will almost certainly be different -- though even that is not guaranteed.

The OP referred to the notion of there being no manual; we have to figure out how to use the tool ourselves.

A traditional programming tool manual would explain that you can provide input X and expect output Y. Do this, and that will happen. It is not so clear-cut with AI tools, because they are -- by default, in popular configurations -- nondeterministic.

▲

grim_io 3 days ago | parent [-]

We are one functional output guarantee away from them being optimizing compilers.

Of course, we maybe never get there :)

▲

tjr 3 days ago | parent [-]

Why would one opt to use an LLM-based AI tool as a compiler? It seems that would be extraordinarily complex over traditional compilers, but for what benefit?

▲

grim_io 3 days ago | parent [-]

It would be, in its ideal state a vague problem to concrete and robust implementation compiler.

A star trek replicator for software.

Obviously we are nowhere near that, and we may never arrive. But this is the big bet.

	▲	optimalsolver 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>A star trek replicator for software That's a very interesting way to put it.