[lelanthran]

> Also worth noting, early compilers (all through the 1980s) routinely had bugs that generated incorrect code.

Incorrect. They had bugs that generated incorrect code. They didn't routinely have bugs that generated incorrect code :-/

And the bugs they had were reproducible.

[renticulous]

Didn't someone say LLMs memorize Harry Potter books? You can't have it both ways.

[lelanthran]

> Didn't someone say LLMs memorize Harry Potter books? You can't have it both ways.

What both ways? You can't consistently get it to output Harry Potter verbatim. That's my point - not reproducible.

[renticulous]

There are many ways to write a forloop. Why do you need exact reproducibility for achieving a task?

[lelanthran]

> There are many ways to write a forloop. Why do you need exact reproducibility for achieving a task?

Didn't you just claim above, with the Harry Potter angle, that it is reproducible?

[customguy]

Not "exact reproducibility", but simple reproducibility at all. You need that to fix bugs, improve things and reason about them.