[Vaguely2178]

> In the same way I don't care about "maintainable assembly" coming out of a C compiler, I don't care about maintainable Python coming out of my LLM.

A well tested compiler is far more deterministic than an LLM, and can be largely treated as a black box because it won't randomly hallucinate output.

[zoogeny]

Humans aren't deterministic. I've trusted junior engineers to ship code. I fail to see a significant difference here in the long term.

We have engineering practices that guard against humans making mistakes that break builds or production environments. It isn't like we are going to discard those practices. In fact, we'll double down on them. I would subject an LLM to the level of strict validation that any human engineer would fine suffocating.

The reason we trust compilers as a black box is because we have created systems that allow us to do so. There is no reason I can see currently that we will be unable to do so for LLM output.

I might be wrong, time will tell. We're going to find out because some will try. And if it turns out to be as effective as C was compared to assembly then I want to be on that side of history as early as possible.

[Vaguely2178]

> Humans aren't deterministic.

Exactly, which is why I would want humans and LLMs to write maintainable code, so that I can review and maintain it, which brings us back to the original question of which programming languages are the easiest to maintain...

[zoogeny]

Well, we're in a loop then because my response was "you don't care about maintainable assembly".

I want maintainable systems you want maintainable code. We can just accept that difference. I believe maintainable systems can be achieved without focusing on code that humans find maintainable. In the future, I believe we will build systems on top of code primarily written by LLMs and the rubric of what constitutes good code will change accordingly.

edit: I would also add that your position is exactly the position of assembly programmers when C came around. They lamented the assembly the C compiler generated. "I want assembly I can read, understand and maintain" they demanded. They didn't get it.

[Vaguely2178]

We're stuck in a loop because you're flip flopping between two positions.

You started off by comparing LLM output to compiler output, which I pointed out is a false equivalence because LLMs aren't as deterministic as compilers.

Then you switched to comparing LLMs to humans, which I'm fine with, but then LLMs must be expected to produce maintainable code just like humans.

Now you're going back to the original premise that LLM output is comparable to compiler output, thus completing the loop.

[zoogeny]

There are more elements to a compiler than determinism. That is, determinism isn't their sole defining property. I can compare other properties of compilers to LLMs. No "flip flop" there IMO, but your judgment may vary.

Perhaps it is impossible for you to imagine that LLMs can share some properties with compilers and other properties with humans? And that this specific blend of properties makes them unique? And that uniqueness means we have to take a nuanced approach to understanding their impact on designing and building systems?

So lets lay it out. LLMs are like compilers in that they take high level instructions (in the form of English) and translate it into programming languages. Maybe "transpiler" would be a word you prefer? LLMs are like humans in that this translation of high level instructions to programming languages is non-deterministic and so it requires system level controls to handle this imprecision.

I do not detect any conflict in these two ideas but perhaps you see things differently.

[Vaguely2178]

> There are more elements to a compiler than determinism.

Yes, but determinism is the factor that allows me to treat compilers as a black box without verifying their output. LLMs do not share this specific property, which is why I have to verify their output, and easily verifiable software is what I call "maintainable".