I don't agree with this take. Determinism is a nice property for abstractions to have, but it isn't necessary to be an abstraction.

And LLMs can handle very abstract concepts that could not possibly be encoded in C++, like the user's goal in using software.

▲

farmdawgnation 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you could also make the case that the existing abstractions aren't actually fully deterministic themselves. The compiler or interpreter may not behave as it should. Therefore, for any correct C code, there's probability that the GCC compiler will turn it into correctly formed machine code. But it may not!

Is the probability much higher with GCC? Sure. But it's still a probability.

▲

anon-3988 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I am sorry but this is an insane take. The probability of GCC going haywire with your special snowflake correct C code? Please. Have this EVER happen to you? I am not talking about the performance of the generated assembly because that IS flaky, but functionality wise I do not think so.

If people are so confident about the determinism of LLMs, or at least consider it on par with compilers, please ask it to compile your source code instead. Better yet, replace all your GNU utils with LLM instead. Replace your `ls` with `codex "prompt"`.

	▲	elwebmaster 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I have done this, alias codex --yolo -p . It's very helpful not having to remember every odd command and its parameters. It's a bit more typing but I type faster than invoke and scan through man pages.

▲

hirako2000 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They are deterministic. Including in the way they fail.