[keybored]

That you anticipated a retort isn’t enough. You also have to refute it.

Yeah compilers are deterministic and LLMs are not. The response to that?

The answer could very well be something like what’s in TFA namely formal verification. But an answer here is needed.

[dist-epoch]

Human programmers are not deterministic either - give the same spec/task to 3 programmers and you'll get three different implementations.

Yet somehow this didn't stopped a giant software industry existing.

[keybored]

I have millions of years of training data on the non-determinism or whatever of humans. That’s how, uh, humans can interoperate with humans.

[dist-epoch]

So you agree hard formal non-determinism is not required, just a sort of convergence of code and spec. Turns out LLMs can do this non-formal-deterministic human-deterministic programming too.

[keybored]

In my very first comment I made an openening for some kind of counter-argument, explicitly singling out the submitted piece here about formal verification. That you now seem to think that you are dribbling me into making some kind of concession that there might be use-case for LLMs here is beyond me.

I was asking you for a refutal, after all, not asking myself. Sarcastically pointing to compilers and meatbags in order to triumphantly conclude, aha so there’s a chance, isn’t quite it.