Lord Satan give me strength. Yes people review compiler output, like compiler engineers. Compilers are deterministic, so reviewing it once is sufficient. Man, it's like some kind of blanket of stupidity over the world. Also clearly AI-written article, because of course it is.
Nobody Reviews Compiler Output
31–36 of 36 posts
Re: Nobody Reviews Compiler Output
#32If the quality of LLM's keep increasing, will it emulate the abstraction shift that compliers gave us?
i.e. can useful deterministic complier-like behavior ever be found with a non-deterministic LLM approach?
In my view the answer is yes (for most people). I don't think the technology has to formally perfect to create a significant shift in how we write (most) software.
There will still be some who review AI code. Probably in the domains where people review complier code. But not everything actually needs that level of formal verification.
Re: Nobody Reviews Compiler Output
#33[deleted]
Re: Nobody Reviews Compiler Output
#34Nobody does brain surgery.
Nobody goes to space.
Nobody is the head of state of a country.
Nobody knows the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.
Just because few specialist people do something doesn't mean "nobody" does it.
The thesis of this article is false.
Re: Nobody Reviews Compiler Output
#35""" we need to build: Formal specification layers that agents execute against, not just prompts """ It is probably easier to just write that program.
Talked with someone this morning who is using "formal methods" to validate their AI generated code. They are using the same AI to generate the proofs.
And how they are doing? I think this might be a solid research program - but that blog presented it as some kind of practical approach.
Re: Nobody Reviews Compiler Output
#36Seems reasonable to me. The article doesn't say to trust the LLM blindly, as many early commenters seem to think, instead it suggests an evolution to a set of practices that provide similar guardrails at a faster cadence.
The argument in the comments about lack of determinism is just weird because humans are not deterministic machines and they're arguing about keeping one non-deterministic thing in the loop but scoffing at another.
And the pedantry about reviewing compiler output is just as silly. Yes it happens but in the broad world of software engineering unless you're working on the tools themselves, or chasing a really tricky bug, no one looks at the byte code.