[sarchertech]

> But I sorta imagine that you could later on take the full transcript of that conversation and expect any LLM to implement more or less the same thing based on it

Why would you think this though? There are an infinite number of programs that can satisfy any non-trivial spec.

We have theoretical solutions to LLM non-determinism, we have no theoretical solutions to prompt instability especially when we can’t even measure what correct is.

[ajkjk]

yeah but all of the infinite programs are valid if they satisfy the spec (well, within reason). That's kinda the point. Implementation details like how the code is structured or what language it's in are swept under the rug, akin to how today you don't really care what register layout the compiler chooses for some code.

[sarchertech]

There has never been a non trivial program in the history of the world that could just “sweep all the implementation details under the rug”.

Compilers use rigorous modeling to guarantee semantic equality and that is only possible because they are translating between formal languages.

A natural language spec can never be precise enough to specify all possible observable behaviors, so your bot swarm trying to satisfy the spec is guaranteed to constantly change observable behaviors.

This gets exposed to users and churn, jank, and workflow breaking bugs.