[mwarkentin]

Is it? If the spec is as detailed as the code would be? If you make a change to one part of the spec do you now have inconsistencies that the LLM is going to have to resolve in some way? Are we going to have a compiler, or type checker type tools for the spec to catch these errors sooner?

[CamperBob2]

It IS a compiler. You might as well ask if the machine-language output of a C compiler is as detailed as the C code was.

To anticipate your objection: you can get over determinism now, or you can get over it later. You will get over it, though, if you intend to stay in this business.

[discreteevent]

> It IS a compiler.

What are you talking about? If an LLM is a compiler, then I'm a compiler. Are we going to redefine the meaning of words in order not to upset the LLM makers?

[reverius42]

Originally, the word "computer" referred to a human being. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

Over time, when digital computers became commonplace, the computing moved from the person to the machine. At this time, arguably the humans doing the programming of the machine were doing the work we now ask of a "compiler".

So yes, an LLM can be a compiler in some sense (from a high level abstract language into a programming language), and you too can be a compiler! But currently it's probably a good use of the LLM's time and probably not a good use of yours.

[jason_oster]

I don't know, having done a lot of completely pointless time-wasting staring at hex dumps and assembly language in my youth was a pretty darned good lesson. I say it's a worthwhile hobby to be a compiler.

But your point stands. There is a period beyond which doing more than learning the fundamentals just becomes toil.