There is evidence that LLMs are capable of making assembly that runs a great deal more efficiently than the compiler can manage on its own.

▲

wild_egg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are a ton of optimization opportunities that hinge on the intent of a piece of code which static compilers can never detect at scale. LLMs can actually navigate that and write surprisingly optimal assembly.

I've had all my side projects being written in x64 for the last 6 months and it is shockingly effective.

▲

kibwen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The purpose of an optimizing compiler is not merely to produce efficient assembly. The goal of an optimizing compiler is to produce efficient assembly while confidently preserving a program's observable logical semantics. Asking an LLM to spit out raw unstructured assembly based on inferred context from a specification given in English is a contender for one of the worst ideas I have ever heard; I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

	▲	vitally3643 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Code is code my dude. If an LLM can turn English into Python, there's really no reason it can't do assembly. Assembly is not magic, it's just code that humans find difficult to grok. LLMs, it would seem, don't have the same kind of trouble understanding assembly that humans do. Have you ever compiled something by hand? You should try sometime, it's an illuminating experience. Humans find it hard because you have to remember a lot of details while simultaneously paying attention to a different large set of information while also generating instructions. It's tough, but not impossible, it takes humans a lot of time and effort. How might a computer fare if it could remember everything and pay attention to multiple inputs and outputs at once? That's what an LLM does.

▲

Agingcoder an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you have references ?

▲

throwaway613746 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]