| ▲ | taraharris 2 hours ago | |
The claim is that compilers were f(x) -> y, and LLMs are f(x) -> P(y | z1 | z2 | ... z3). But how were various combinations of popular programming languages, operating systems and hardware platforms not effectively f(x) -> P(y | z1 | z2 | ... z3)? Suppose you were quick on the take and were writing in Unix and C in the early 80s and found yourself porting your program from a PDP-something to an 8088 PC, or to a 68k Mac, dealing with DOS extenders, printer drivers, different versions of C (remember K&R style?) or C++? Remember MFC? The evolution of the STL? LLMs are similar to that maelstrom, just on a faster timescale. | ||
| ▲ | hirako2000 an hour ago | parent [-] | |
The difference is that you can port f(x) -> y To be exactly that. To any target that exists and to come. An LLM can't. Even within your primary target. It's like explaining how a hammer isn't a screw driver. And someone comes to argue the fact that a hammer too, can break. | ||