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

[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.

[bri7@social.treehouse.systems]

@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

[rosie@0x4d4f5448.systems]

We love it when changes have non-localized and unpredictable results;

[drwho@masto.hackers.town]

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

[mcc@mastodon.social]

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

[cwebber@social.coop]

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

[dryak@mstdn.science]

@mcc @mntmn @cwebber speaking of expanding to more users and of assembler:

An argument I've heard is that: in the past high level compiled languages have replaced assembler, and LLMs are the next step.

Well, assembler -- and assembler-adjacent stuff like C's SIMD intrinsics -- are still relied upon (think finely optimised low-lvl libraries in some fields like gaming, video codecs, and number crunching in scientific data analysis).
...

[dryak@mstdn.science]

@mcc @mntmn @cwebber ...
It's not gone. I suspect there might be even more people with the know how than back in the days.
It's just that thier numbers haven't grown as fast as, e.g., the number of people who nowadays know only Python or other high-lvl languages, and would never dare to learn anything lower-lvl and would be abandonning computing back in the days.
...

[smn@l3ib.org]

@cwebber they're lossy pseudorandom decompression

[octorine@fosstodon.org]

@cstanhope @drwho @mcc @mntmn @cwebber And to bring it full circle, grad students *can* be compilers.

[octorine@fosstodon.org]

@mntmn @cwebber My company is 100% invested in ai. It's all management talks about. Before LLMs, we were all in on no-code or low code languages, web robots and such.

It's basically the same fantasy as before, but this time the whole world is along for the ride.

[alina@girldick.gay]

@cwebber @joeyh the binding of isaac, enter the gungeon and dead cells are worse than a slot machine for my adhd brain

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@cwebber oh, they could… if you operated them yourself. Snapshotting, and saving the PRNG seed.

[rdviii@famichiki.jp]

@cwebber mostly agree, especially about them not being compilers, but some compilers aren't deterministic. You'll get a different result in memory layout or optimization sometimes. Especially for quantum compilers, where the compilation process itself is known to be NP hard, so heuristics are used.

[kkarhan@infosec.space]

@eramdam @cwebber +1

[nobody@mastodon.acm.org]

@cwebber
PGO go brrrrr

[baloouriza@social.tulsa.ok.us]

@cwebber This is more like the Pentium 4 idea of predictive branching, but with even larger pipeline stalls. Except the P4 could still do math.

[osma@mas.to]

For the people who compare an LLM to a compiler, the latter are not deterministic. They can not understand how sometimes* programs work, and sometimes they do not. The fault for this must be in the computer - hence LLMs equal compilers.

*depending on source code input and running conditions.
@cwebber

[cdonat@hostsharing.coop]

@rdviii @cwebber

Heuristics aren't non-deterministic by definition. Of course it is possible to come up with non-deterministic heuristics, just like with any kind of algorithm. But by far most heuristics are very deterministic, just like most algorithms are, heuristic, or not.

[ryanc@infosec.exchange]

@drwho @cstanhope @mcc @mntmn @cwebber Honestly, I would prefer LLM generated code over grad student generated code.