[felipellrocha]

If you truly believe that, why don’t you just transform code directly to assembly? Skip the middleman, and get a ton of performance!

[bdcravens]

I assume you're being cynical, but there's a lot of truth in what you say: LLMs allow me to build software to fit my architecture and business needs, even if it's not a language I'm familiar with.

[operatingthetan]

I know you're being cheeky but we are definitely heading in that direction. We will see frameworks exclusively designed for LLM use get popular.

[nemo44x]

I think that’s possible too but the trouble is training them. LLMs are built on decades of human input. A new framework, programming language, database, etc doesn’t have that.

We are in the low hanging fruit phase right now.

[operatingthetan]

If it knows the language already a new framework is a piece of cake. A few MD files explaining it is enough for the pattern recognition to kick in. I've had one LLM create a novel framework and pass them to another and it's trivial for a fresh instance to pick it up.

[charcircuit]

Assembly eats up context like crazy. I usually only have my LLM use assembly for debugging / performance / reversing work.

[n4r9]

Can agents write good assembly code?

[svachalek]

With the complexity of modern pipelines, there are very few humans that can beat a good optimizing compiler. Considering that with an LLM you're also bloating limited context with unsemantic instructions I can't see how this is anything but an exercise in failure.

[mirsadm]

I don't know if I agree with that. It's a struggle to get a modern compiler to vectorize a basic loop.

[ICantFeelMyToes]

you know if I could I would (Android dev)