Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
55 Posts 45 Posters 103 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

    I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

    Noooooooooo
    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

    And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

    jaredwhite@indieweb.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    jaredwhite@indieweb.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
    jaredwhite@indieweb.social
    wrote last edited by
    #6

    @cwebber Not only do I hear stuff like this from regular brogrammers, I've even heard it from people I've traditionally admired a great deal for being (to date) serious developers and stewards of platforms & APIs.

    I. Don't. Get. It. At. All.

    Please make it make sense!! (I know, it doesn't… 😭)

    downey@floss.socialD 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • jaredwhite@indieweb.socialJ jaredwhite@indieweb.social

      @cwebber Not only do I hear stuff like this from regular brogrammers, I've even heard it from people I've traditionally admired a great deal for being (to date) serious developers and stewards of platforms & APIs.

      I. Don't. Get. It. At. All.

      Please make it make sense!! (I know, it doesn't… 😭)

      downey@floss.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
      downey@floss.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
      downey@floss.social
      wrote last edited by
      #7

      @jaredwhite

      llm psychosis is real

      @cwebber

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • mntmn@mastodon.socialM mntmn@mastodon.social

        @cwebber exactly this. on the flip side, there seemed to be a vast desire among management types and maybe hobbyists for some super easy super high level language. but idk if it's even worth going there. avoiding the details only works until it doesn't

        mcc@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
        mcc@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
        mcc@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #8

        @mntmn @cwebber I think the single interesting thing LLMs have revealed is that there is a substantial market segment who has an active desire for natural language interfaces to the computer and who will flip from "do not engage to the computer" to "engage with the computer" if a natural language interface became available.

        I do not personally want a natural language interface to the computer. I also do not believe the thing LLM vendors have built is a natural language interface to the computer

        drwho@masto.hackers.townD lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL mcc@mastodon.socialM dhobern@scicomm.xyzD dryak@mstdn.scienceD 5 Replies Last reply
        1
        0
        • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

          @mntmn @cwebber I think the single interesting thing LLMs have revealed is that there is a substantial market segment who has an active desire for natural language interfaces to the computer and who will flip from "do not engage to the computer" to "engage with the computer" if a natural language interface became available.

          I do not personally want a natural language interface to the computer. I also do not believe the thing LLM vendors have built is a natural language interface to the computer

          drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
          drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
          drwho@masto.hackers.town
          wrote last edited by
          #9

          @mcc @mntmn @cwebber I love the idea of a natural language interface for some tasks ("Exeter, download all PDF files from https://example.com/archive") but the implementations are all over designed fire that kind of task.

          cstanhope@social.coopC 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • drwho@masto.hackers.townD drwho@masto.hackers.town

            @mcc @mntmn @cwebber I love the idea of a natural language interface for some tasks ("Exeter, download all PDF files from https://example.com/archive") but the implementations are all over designed fire that kind of task.

            cstanhope@social.coopC This user is from outside of this forum
            cstanhope@social.coopC This user is from outside of this forum
            cstanhope@social.coop
            wrote last edited by
            #10

            @drwho @mcc @mntmn @cwebber

            I once heard a joke that went something like:

            Q: What's the highest level language you can program in?

            A: Grad student.

            (I only mention the joke because the underlying truth of it seems to be exposed in many ways, including the current LLM mess we're in.)

            drwho@masto.hackers.townD O 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

              I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

              Noooooooooo
              Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

              LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

              And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

              kirtai@tech.lgbtK This user is from outside of this forum
              kirtai@tech.lgbtK This user is from outside of this forum
              kirtai@tech.lgbt
              wrote last edited by
              #11

              @cwebber
              I think that's the worst part about them.
              They confidently give you total lies.

              Give me deterministic helpers any day.
              At least the worst you can get there is an error.

              (Other than the psychosis they cause)

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

                Noooooooooo
                Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

                LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

                And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

                bennomatic@appdot.netB This user is from outside of this forum
                bennomatic@appdot.netB This user is from outside of this forum
                bennomatic@appdot.net
                wrote last edited by
                #12

                @cwebber To be fair, you can’t spell LLVM without LLM.

                🤪

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                  @mntmn @cwebber I think the single interesting thing LLMs have revealed is that there is a substantial market segment who has an active desire for natural language interfaces to the computer and who will flip from "do not engage to the computer" to "engage with the computer" if a natural language interface became available.

                  I do not personally want a natural language interface to the computer. I also do not believe the thing LLM vendors have built is a natural language interface to the computer

                  lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
                  lritter@mastodon.gamedev.placeL This user is from outside of this forum
                  lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place
                  wrote last edited by
                  #13

                  @mcc @mntmn @cwebber wittgenstein would hate all this with the intensity of a 1000 suns

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                    I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

                    Noooooooooo
                    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

                    LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

                    And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

                    ferret@hub.workersofthe.worldF This user is from outside of this forum
                    ferret@hub.workersofthe.worldF This user is from outside of this forum
                    ferret@hub.workersofthe.world
                    wrote last edited by
                    #14
                    @Christine Lemmer-Webber Run plenty of experiments even with just LLMs giving the same prompt and getting extremely different, even sometimes contrastive results. We don't even really understand how they work in the first place, so anyone suggesting they're anything like assemblers or compilers is out of their mind.
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                      I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

                      Noooooooooo
                      Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

                      LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

                      And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

                      disorderlyf@todon.euD This user is from outside of this forum
                      disorderlyf@todon.euD This user is from outside of this forum
                      disorderlyf@todon.eu
                      wrote last edited by
                      #15

                      @cwebber How the fuck did we go from "they're really good for boilerplate" to "they're basically the same as a compiler or assembler" with output quality either stagnating or getting worse?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                        @mntmn @cwebber I think the single interesting thing LLMs have revealed is that there is a substantial market segment who has an active desire for natural language interfaces to the computer and who will flip from "do not engage to the computer" to "engage with the computer" if a natural language interface became available.

                        I do not personally want a natural language interface to the computer. I also do not believe the thing LLM vendors have built is a natural language interface to the computer

                        mcc@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                        mcc@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                        mcc@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #16

                        @mntmn @cwebber And I'd say "maybe the solution is to build a *good* natural language interface to the computer, so people use that instead" but I don't think a culture that believes LLMs are a computer interface (or are an "artificial intelligence"), could build or adopt such a system. If you put it side by side with the LLM the LLM will "win" because it is fail-open. A "good" interface would tell you when it can't do something, and then the user quits using it. An LLM can make something up.

                        airtower@woem.menA ireneista@adhd.irenes.spaceI 2 Replies Last reply
                        0
                        • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                          @mntmn @cwebber And I'd say "maybe the solution is to build a *good* natural language interface to the computer, so people use that instead" but I don't think a culture that believes LLMs are a computer interface (or are an "artificial intelligence"), could build or adopt such a system. If you put it side by side with the LLM the LLM will "win" because it is fail-open. A "good" interface would tell you when it can't do something, and then the user quits using it. An LLM can make something up.

                          airtower@woem.menA This user is from outside of this forum
                          airtower@woem.menA This user is from outside of this forum
                          airtower@woem.men
                          wrote last edited by
                          #17

                          @mcc@mastodon.social @mntmn@mastodon.social @cwebber@social.coop Yeah, and a good computer interface needs to be precise and unambiguous. Natural language is notoriously ambiguous, e.g. pilots and air traffic controllers have to train using precise terminology and phrasing, because a misunderstanding can have catastrophic consequences. I highly doubt people who don't feel like learning a programming language would want to learn a similarly (possibly more strictly) formalized variant of their natural language.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                            @mntmn @cwebber And I'd say "maybe the solution is to build a *good* natural language interface to the computer, so people use that instead" but I don't think a culture that believes LLMs are a computer interface (or are an "artificial intelligence"), could build or adopt such a system. If you put it side by side with the LLM the LLM will "win" because it is fail-open. A "good" interface would tell you when it can't do something, and then the user quits using it. An LLM can make something up.

                            ireneista@adhd.irenes.spaceI This user is from outside of this forum
                            ireneista@adhd.irenes.spaceI This user is from outside of this forum
                            ireneista@adhd.irenes.space
                            wrote last edited by
                            #18

                            @mcc @mntmn @cwebber we aren't quite sure where to start in telling this story, so maybe we won't get into detail, but we were shocked to realize that megacorps have no ambitions for voice assistants beyond turning light bulbs on and off. no desire to build a general-purpose UI at all.

                            mcc@mastodon.socialM 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • mcc@mastodon.socialM mcc@mastodon.social

                              @mntmn @cwebber I think the single interesting thing LLMs have revealed is that there is a substantial market segment who has an active desire for natural language interfaces to the computer and who will flip from "do not engage to the computer" to "engage with the computer" if a natural language interface became available.

                              I do not personally want a natural language interface to the computer. I also do not believe the thing LLM vendors have built is a natural language interface to the computer

                              dhobern@scicomm.xyzD This user is from outside of this forum
                              dhobern@scicomm.xyzD This user is from outside of this forum
                              dhobern@scicomm.xyz
                              wrote last edited by
                              #19

                              @mcc @mntmn @cwebber

                              I think there's a broader corollary (or perhaps it's actually a central subset of what you describe).

                              I always thought most people shared my experience that the exciting thing about the Internet, and good Internet search in particular, was that it offered access to the most relevant sources of information for any query. It was then on me to assess these sources and try to understand the topic at hand.

                              LLMs have resoundingly demonstrated that for most people this is all too much work and reminds them of school.

                              A majority of people clearly don't want to have to put in so much effort. They'd rather have an unambiguous answer that comes back and that they can treat as authoritative.

                              Sidenote - this is why mansplaining is a thing.

                              So, the primary (and I would argue, intended) result of the current "AI" mania is that the world is happily replumbing all its information and knowledge streams so that everyone receives whatever sanctioned propaganda those behind the curtain want to shovel out. (Pick a metaphor and stick with it ...)

                              LLMs are an assault on human communication and our ability to reason, organise and plan. They are the oligarch's wet dream.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                                I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

                                Noooooooooo
                                Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

                                LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

                                And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

                                joeyh@sunbeam.cityJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                joeyh@sunbeam.cityJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                joeyh@sunbeam.city
                                wrote last edited by
                                #20

                                @cwebber of course a deterministic LLM could be made. But ~noone would use it. Being able to reroll the dice is an important part of the confidence game.

                                cwebber@social.coopC ansuz@gts.cryptography.dogA 2 Replies Last reply
                                0
                                • mntmn@mastodon.socialM mntmn@mastodon.social

                                  @cwebber exactly this. on the flip side, there seemed to be a vast desire among management types and maybe hobbyists for some super easy super high level language. but idk if it's even worth going there. avoiding the details only works until it doesn't

                                  bri7@social.treehouse.systemsB This user is from outside of this forum
                                  bri7@social.treehouse.systemsB This user is from outside of this forum
                                  bri7@social.treehouse.systems
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #21

                                  @mntmn @cwebber management types have wanted this since the 1950s. it’s why COBOL and SQL exist; it’s why RAD exists. It’s why so called “4th Generation Languages” exist. Management would like nothing more to be done with needing to think about all those pesky details like “that’s a logical impossibility” or “that’s P=NP”, they want their word to be the word of god

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • cwebber@social.coopC cwebber@social.coop

                                    I keep seeing lots of people saying "LLMs are like compilers/assemblers for prompts"

                                    Noooooooooo
                                    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

                                    LLMs are not compilers, and they're not assemblers. Determinism is a key aspect to assemblers and compilers.

                                    And they *certainly* can't be part of a reproducible pipeline

                                    rosie@0x4d4f5448.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rosie@0x4d4f5448.systemsR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rosie@0x4d4f5448.systems
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #22
                                    We love it when changes have non-localized and unpredictable results;
                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • cstanhope@social.coopC cstanhope@social.coop

                                      @drwho @mcc @mntmn @cwebber

                                      I once heard a joke that went something like:

                                      Q: What's the highest level language you can program in?

                                      A: Grad student.

                                      (I only mention the joke because the underlying truth of it seems to be exposed in many ways, including the current LLM mess we're in.)

                                      drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
                                      drwho@masto.hackers.townD This user is from outside of this forum
                                      drwho@masto.hackers.town
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #23

                                      @cstanhope @mcc @mntmn @cwebber I like it.

                                      ryanc@infosec.exchangeR 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • ireneista@adhd.irenes.spaceI ireneista@adhd.irenes.space

                                        @mcc @mntmn @cwebber we aren't quite sure where to start in telling this story, so maybe we won't get into detail, but we were shocked to realize that megacorps have no ambitions for voice assistants beyond turning light bulbs on and off. no desire to build a general-purpose UI at all.

                                        mcc@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        mcc@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                        mcc@mastodon.social
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #24

                                        @ireneista @mntmn @cwebber well it's a general purpose UI *now* but only in a very monkeys paw way

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • joeyh@sunbeam.cityJ joeyh@sunbeam.city

                                          @cwebber of course a deterministic LLM could be made. But ~noone would use it. Being able to reroll the dice is an important part of the confidence game.

                                          cwebber@social.coopC This user is from outside of this forum
                                          cwebber@social.coopC This user is from outside of this forum
                                          cwebber@social.coop
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #25

                                          @joeyh I mean real talk that's why I don't play preset seeds in roguelikes, hooked on that RNG juice

                                          alina@girldick.gayA eviloatmeal@ak.angelstrapped.comE 2 Replies Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups