Comment by pjmlp
Comment by pjmlp 2 months ago
Missed the part?
> Most likely we will still need some kind of formalisation tools to tame natural language uncertainties, however most certainly they won't be Python/Rust like
Comment by pjmlp 2 months ago
Missed the part?
> Most likely we will still need some kind of formalisation tools to tame natural language uncertainties, however most certainly they won't be Python/Rust like
How deterministic are C compilers at -O3, while compiling exactly the same code across various kinds of vector instructions, and GPUs?
We are already on the baby steps down that path,
https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/copilot/copilot-customiza...
Take a look at the following: https://reproduce.debian.net/
Granted, lot's of different compilers and arguments depending on packages. But you need to match this reproducibility in a fancy pants 7GL
You moved the goal posts and declared victory - that's not what deterministic means. It means same source, same flags, same output. Under that definition, the actual definition, they're 99.9% deterministic (we strive for 100% but bugs do happen).
Nope the goal stayed at the same position, people argue for deterministic results while using tools that by definition aren't deterministic unless a big chunck of work is done ensuring that it is indeed.
"It means same source, same flags, same output", it suffices to change the CPU and the Assembly behaviour might not be the same.
No, I didn't miss it. I think the fact that LLMs are non deterministic means we'll need a lot more than "some kind of formalization tools", we'll need real programming languages for some applications!