- it is a very very very very fancy autocomplete
Each year, as the models improve, we add one more "very".
Extrapolating as "very" approaches infinity: "Let there be light!"
Claude Is Not a Compiler
31–40 of 174 posts
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#32A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't*. A compiler almost never produces a wrong output, even when compiling an extremely complicated program. But a compiler must be clearly defined and is limited to input/commands it's defined for. A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended (e.g. omitting large sections of code that are undefined behavior). C…
> A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't
"Algorithm" is not a word with a definition, so I can't say that you're wrong, but I struggle to see how you conceptualize "algorithm" in a way that does include a compiler but does not include a language model.
I think the distinction you're trying to draw is better captured by comparing inductive and deductive program synthesis.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you are projecting your personal misgivings onto the argument actually being made. May be better to write your own rebuttal instead?
I'm pretty sure they just did...
A rebuttal would spend some time trying to make a case, this is a petulant complaint.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#34A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't*. A compiler almost never produces a wrong output, even when compiling an extremely complicated program. But a compiler must be clearly defined and is limited to input/commands it's defined for. A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended (e.g. omitting large sections of code that are undefined behavior). C…
> A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't "Algorithm" is not a word with a definition, so I can't say that you're wrong, but I struggle to see how you conceptualize "algorithm" in a way that does include a compiler but does not include a language model. I think the distinction you're trying to draw is better captured by comparing inductive and deductive program synthesis.
Those are the exact concepts I was looking for.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#35A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't*. A compiler almost never produces a wrong output, even when compiling an extremely complicated program. But a compiler must be clearly defined and is limited to input/commands it's defined for. A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended (e.g. omitting large sections of code that are undefined behavior). C…
> A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended
Importantly, this behavior is deterministic. If the compiler takes your code and spits out something you did not expect, it will always spit out that same result, given the same input. Once you figure out what went wrong, you've solved that problem.
Generative AI is intentionally not deterministic, and that means you're going to solve the same issues -- hallucinations, primarily -- over and over again.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#36Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#37A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't*. A compiler almost never produces a wrong output, even when compiling an extremely complicated program. But a compiler must be clearly defined and is limited to input/commands it's defined for. A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended (e.g. omitting large sections of code that are undefined behavior). C…
>A compiler almost never produces a wrong output back log of compiler's bugs can be pretty large
> almost never
But not never. "Almost" is doing a lot of work there.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#38- it is a very very very very fancy autocomplete
Sure, but it's at the point now where it can autocomplete a fragment of a sketch of an idea into a complete working product.
No, it isn't. It can autocomplete a fragment of a sketch of an idea into something that may or may not match the original vision and almost certainly has serious bugs which only manifest over time because they elude a cursory test.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#39> I read a vanishingly small amount of the actual code.
This sentiment kind of saddens me. I'm all for burning tokens to write throwaway code just to prototype a solution, but I don't get not reading (or at least familiarizing yourself with) the code that you will deploy to prod.
Re: Claude Is Not a Compiler
#40A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't*. A compiler almost never produces a wrong output, even when compiling an extremely complicated program. But a compiler must be clearly defined and is limited to input/commands it's defined for. A compiler will "correctly" process input into unintuitive output, but that's not always what the user intended (e.g. omitting large sections of code that are undefined behavior). C…
> A compiler is an algorithm and Claude isn't "Algorithm" is not a word with a definition, so I can't say that you're wrong, but I struggle to see how you conceptualize "algorithm" in a way that does include a compiler but does not include a language model. I think the distinction you're trying to draw is better captured by comparing inductive and deductive program synthesis.
[deleted]