The art of programming and why I won't use LLM

Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by yes_man on Sunday August 25, 2024 @02:40PM (#41349990)

I get the point that they are in different magnitudes of unknown but the analogy is still pretty good when it comes to the median programmer, who has no idea what goes on within either one. And if you argue that compilers are ultimately deterministic, that same argument technically holds for an LLM as well.

The biggest difference to me is that we have humans that claim they can explain why compilers work the way they do. But I might as well trust someone who says the same about LLMs, because honestly I have no way to verify if they speak the truth. So I am already offloading a lot of burden of proof about the systems I work on to others. And why does this ”other” need to be a human.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by milemi on Sunday August 25, 2024 @03:03PM (#41350214)

This is like saying “I don’t understand how airplanes fly, so I’ll happily board an airplane designed by an LLM. The reality is determined by how much I know about it.”

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by yes_man on Sunday August 25, 2024 @03:59PM (#41350754)

No, the other way around. I am saying it is not a smart take to say ”a safe airplane cannot be built if LLMs were used in the process in any way, because reasons”. The safety of the airplane (or more generally the outcome of any venture) can be measured in other ways than leaning on some rule that you cannot use an LLM for help at any stage because they are not always correct

[ Parent | on HN ]