[ggandhi]

Lovable, I feel, works at a higher abstraction layer. The unpredictability of whether my prompt will generate something delightful in that initial design creates an addictive slot machine dynamic. But would these tools lose their magic if the results became completely deterministic?

[esafak]

Nah, it would become actually useful. Companies are not going to keep paying for slot machines. There is a strong incentive to make them reliable.

[sokoloff]

Companies will rationally stop paying for slot machines that pay out $0.90 for every $1 wagered, but they’ll happily pay for slot machines that pay out $5 for every $1 wagered.

Which will be the case is the interesting question.

[Ekaros]

At this point I am doubtful about calling companies rational actors in many many cases. So probably they play both machines. And it is somewhat luck which they hit and some maybe have rational leaders.

[troupo]

> But would these tools lose their magic if the results became completely deterministic?

No. They would become extremely useful and more magical. Because instead of weird incantations and shamanic rituals of "just one more .rules file, bro, I swear" you could create useful reproducible working tools.

[leptons]

Except an LLM is not and never will be deterministic, by its very design that is not how it operates. It would need to be a fundamentally different tech from the ground up.

[troupo]

Exactly :)