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

Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by DougN7 on Sunday August 25, 2024 @06:01PM (#41351862)

So? Compilers compile and LLMs do not. Compilers use linkers and LLMs do not. Arbitrary distinctions don’t means “this time it’s different”.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM by grey-area on Thursday September 05, 2024 @09:43AM (#41456555)

So as the OP said, all the parts are deterministic in this stack. Their behavior is fixed for a given input, and all the parts are interpretable, readable, verifiable and observable.

This is entirely different from LLMs which are opaque even to their designers, and have unpredictable flaws and hallucinations, they are probability machines based on what data they have been exposed to, which means they are not a reliable way to generate programs.

Maybe one day we'll fix this, but the current generation is not very useful for programming because of this.

[ Parent | on HN ]