| ▲ | heartbreak 5 hours ago | |
> Each time you "compile" your prompt into a program, LLMs spit up something a little bit different. How is it a good thing? Because that’s not how it works. How can we have a discussion about this topic if we don’t have a mutual understanding of how the tools even work? The code is not replaced by English prompts. The code still exists. | ||
| ▲ | orphea 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Yes, it exists, but are you going to edit it by hand if you didn't write it in the first place, or you would rather throw another prompt to update it? People tend to do the latter, thinking about the code as some generated artifact, like object files. | ||
| ▲ | skydhash 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> The code is not replaced by English prompts. The code still exists If you can guarantee that it does what you say it does, then all is ok. The core issue since the advent of ChatGPT was always this reliability issue, whether the end result, the code, addresses the change request issued. It turned out that you need to be an expert programmer to vet the code as well as supervise its evolution, whatever the tool used to write it. | ||