[dustbunny]

Using assembly is not really more precise in terms of solving the problem. You can definitely make an argument that using a higher level language is equally if not more precise. Especially since your low level assembly will be limited to which architectures it can run on, you can state that the c++ that generates that assembly is "more precisely defining a calculator program".

[rictic]

I agree with your general point, but C++ isn't a great example, as it is so underspecified. Imagine as part of our calculator we wrote the function:

    int add(int a, int b) {
      return a + b;
    }

What is the result of add(32767, 1)? C++ does not presume to define just one meaning for such an expression. Or even any meaning at all. What to do when the program tries to add ints that large is left to the personal conscience of compiler authors.

[d0mine]

Precision is not boolean (present or absent/0 or 1). There may be many numbers between 0 and 1. Compared to human languages, programming languages are much more precise that makes the results much more predictable in practice.

I can imagine OS being written in C++ and working most of the time. I don't think you can replace Linux written in C with any number of LLM prompts.

LLM can be a [bad so far] programmer but a prompt is not a program.

[tim333]

Using code may not be more precise in terms of solving a problem than english. Take the NHS. With better AI, saying build a good IT system for the NHS may have worked better than this stuff https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-...