Re:The art of programming and why I won't use LLM
by sifar on Monday August 26, 2024 @12:45AM
(#41354088)
The question is about the abstraction being understandable and predictable. All the examples you have follow that, LLMs throw that out of the window.
>> Scratch that, I guess you're not using a modern microprocessor to generate microcode from a higher-level instruction set either?
Hell, I design gate level logic -> map it to instructions -> use them in C for the very LLMs and can fully understand[0] every aspect of it (if it doesn't behave as expected, that is a bug) but I cannot fathom or predict how the LLMs behave when i use them even though I know their architecture and implementation.
[0] Admittedly I treat the tools I use during the process, like cad tools, compiler, as black boxes, however I know that if I want to or the need arises, I can debug/understand them.
>> Scratch that, I guess you're not using a modern microprocessor to generate microcode from a higher-level instruction set either?
Hell, I design gate level logic -> map it to instructions -> use them in C for the very LLMs and can fully understand[0] every aspect of it (if it doesn't behave as expected, that is a bug) but I cannot fathom or predict how the LLMs behave when i use them even though I know their architecture and implementation.
[0] Admittedly I treat the tools I use during the process, like cad tools, compiler, as black boxes, however I know that if I want to or the need arises, I can debug/understand them.