[feanaro]

No, that's a completely different concept, because we have faultless machines which perfectly and deterministically translate high-level code into byte-level machine code. This is another case of (nearly) perfect abstraction.

On the other hand, the whole deal of the LLM is that it does so stochastically and unpredictably.

[Cthulhu_]

The unpredictable part isn't new - from a project manager's point of view, what's the difference between an LLM and a team of software engineers? Both, from that POV, are a black box. The "how" is not important to them, the details aren't important. What's important is that what they want is made a reality, and that customers can press on a button to add a product to their shopping cart (for example).

LLMs mean software developers let go of some control of how something is built, which makes one feel uneasy because a lot of the appeal of software development is control and predictability. But this is the same process that people go through as they go from coder to lead developer or architect or project manager - letting go of control. Some thrive in their new position, having a higher overview of the job, while some really can't handle it.

[bwestergard]

"But this is the same process that people go through as they go from coder to lead developer or architect or project manager - letting go of control."

In those circumstances, it's delegating control. And it's difficult to judge whether the authority you delegated is being misused if you lose touch with how to do the work itself. This comparison shouldn't be pushed too far, but it's not entirely unlike a compiler developer needing to retain the ability to understand machine code instructions.

[endymion-light]

As someone that started off with assembly issues for a large corporation - assembly code may sometimes contain very similiar issues that mroe high-level code those, the perfection of the abstraction is not guaranteed.

But yeah, there's currently a wide gap between that and a stochastic LLM.

[theshrike79]

We also have machines that can perfectly and deterministically check written code for correctness.

And the stohastic LLM can use those tools to check whether its work was sufficient, if not, it will try again - without human intervention. It will repeat this loop until the deterministic checks pass.

[gspr]

> We also have machines that can perfectly and deterministically check written code for correctness.

Please do provide a single example of this preposterous claim.

[theshrike79]

It's not like testing code is a new thing. Junit is almost 30 years old today.

For functionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_testing

With robust enough test suites you can vibe code a HTML5 parser

- https://ikyle.me/blog/2025/swift-justhtml-porting-html5-pars...

- https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/15/porting-justhtml/

And code correctness:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree-sitter_(parser_generator)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roslyn_(compiler)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)

You can make analysers that check for deeply nested code, people calling methods in the wrong order and whatever you want to check. At work we've added multiple Roslyn analysers to our build pipeline to check for invalid/inefficient code, no human will be pinged by a PR until the tests pass. And an LLM can't claim "Job's Done" before the analysers say the code is OK.

And you don't need to make one yourself, there are tons you can just pick from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_...

[gspr]

> It's not like testing code is a new thing. Junit is almost 30 years old today.

Unit tests check whether code behaves in specific ways. They certainly are useful to weed out bugs and to ensure that changes don't have unintended side effects.

> And code correctness:

These are tools to check for syntactic correctness. That is, of course, not what I meant.

You're completely off the mark here.

[theshrike79]

What did you mean then if unit tests and syntactic correctness aren't what you're looking for?

[gspr]

Algorithmic correctness? Unit tests are great for quickly poking holes in obviously algorithmically incorrect code, but far from good enough to ensure correctness. Passing unit tests is necessary, not sufficient.

Syntactic correctness is more or less a solved problem, as you say. Doesn't matter if the author is a human or an LLM.