[snek_case]

The difference is that LLMs are not compilers. You can't trust the output to be correct. They routinely make bad design choices. If you're prototyping some kind of throwaway MVP, you're just sketching something, it's probably fine not to review it. If you're trying to build a piece of software that's going to survive for years, why are you doing this? The tech is clearly not yet fully mature.

Just yesterday, I was trying to use Claude Opus 4.7 to debug an issue in a program that I wrote, and its solution was to remove a feature, change the design to eliminate the problem without consulting me. I only found out that it had removed this feature through testing. Imagine not reviewing things like that. How can people argue for this with a straight face? We'll probably get there eventually, but there's no need to rush before the tech is ready. Doing that is just being clueless.

[soraminazuki]

The comparison with compilers is absurd on its face, yet some keep pushing it as if repeating it enough times will make it true.

[snek_case]

The people who make that comparison are just showing how clueless they are IMO.

[DerArzt]

Why is it absurd?

[soraminazuki]

For the same reason others have explained here and elsewhere, with some writing entire articles on the topic. Compilers produce semantically equivalent translation of source code into target code. That's not at all what LLMs do. They produce unpredictable results from ambiguous specifications written by people who may or may not understand software engineering. Big difference.