I can fart in the general direction of the code and that's a kind of abstraction too. It distills my intent down to a simple raspberry noise which could then be interpreted by sufficiently intelligent software.

Sort of like when people argue about "what is art?", some folks find it clever to come up with the most bizarre of examples to point to, as if the entire concept rests on the existence of its members at the fringe.

Personally, I think if your farts are an abstraction that you can derive useful meaning from the mapping, who are we to tell you no?

So, can derive useful meaning from is the point of contention.

(Also: bizarre examples = informative edge cases. Sometimes.)

The final result of course depending on how many r's there are in the raspberry.

Could you please expand on this thought? I'm curious where this abstraction's inflection points are.

> Just because you end up looking at what the prompt looks like “under the hood” in whichever language it produced the output, doesn’t mean every user does.

> Similar as with assembly, you might have not taken a look at it, but there are people that do and could argue the same thing as you.

... No. The assembler is deterministic. Barring bugs, you can basically trust that it does exactly what it was told to. You absolutely cannot say the same of our beloved robot overlords.