Comment by andrewstuart

Comment by andrewstuart 20 hours ago

He’s saying it’s not faster because he needs to impose his human analysis on it which is slow.

That’s fine, but it’s an arbitrary constraint he chooses, and it’s wrong to say AI is not faster. It is. He just won’t let it be faster.

Some won’t like to hear this, but no-one reviews the machine code that a compiler outputs. That’s the future, like it or not.

You can’t say compilers are slow because I add on the time I take to Analyse the machine code. That’s you being slow.

bluefirebrand 19 hours ago

> no-one reviews the machine code that a compiler outputs

That's because compilers are generally pretty trustworthy. They aren't necessarily bug free, and when you do encounter compiler bugs it can be extremely nasty, but mostly they just work

If compilers were wrong as often as LLMs are, we would be reviewing machine code constantly

Reply View 0 replies

purerandomness 15 hours ago

A compiler produces the same, deterministic output, every single time.

A stochastic parrot can never be trusted, let alone one that tweaks its model every other night.

I totally get that not all code ever written needs to be correct.

Some throw-away experiments can totally be one-shot by AI, nothing wrong with that. Depending on the industry one works in, people might be on different points of the expectation spectrum for correctness, and so their experience with LLMs vary.

It's the RAD tool discussion of the 2000s, or the "No-Code" tools debate of the last decade, all over again.

Reply View 0 replies