> there has not been an issue i found that required me to dig into the assembly of a compiled language (there are edge cases if there was a compiler bug, but I have not seen them myself).

The compiler did exactly what you said because the programming language forced you to be exact. There was no room for misunderstanding.

This will never be the case with an LLM even if it becomes infallible (it won't). It's you who is fallible and sloppy until you force yourself to be precise. A programming language can help with that.

▲

simianwords 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Eh this is also not true. Non determinism doesn’t disqualify something from being useful and necessary. If you are a manager, you employ people (who are non deterministic) to get stuff done.

In fact entirety of humanity has been delegating work to non deterministic specialists. Like how I delegate making food to non deterministic supply chains and capitalism. No one complains about skill atrophy here I’m sure.

“But humans can learn..” well sure agents can learn too, adapt the markdown files.

“But humans are accountable..” distinction without a difference

	▲	discreteevent an hour ago \| parent [-]
		My argument was not that LLMs aren't useful but that a compiler is a completely misleading anamlogy. You compared them to humans. Humans live in the world, have a world model, meet people for lunch and exchange ideas. Agents read markdown files and code. Simanwords, you spend a lot of time on HN promoting LLMs and being dismissive of humans in comparison. I have to ask: Whose side are you on?