This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
-
@arroz That take is another case of only considering the result, not why the result exists.
Also, I guess he's fine with outsourcing his "compiling" to a third party to which he has absolutely no control over.
Vibecoders are only interested in production. They don't care how they get there.
@arroz Much like crypto pushers, vibecoders think that trust is a bad thing.
Short term gain makes for long term pain. But hey, at least we provided a lot of shareholder value for a while, amirite?
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz bingo
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz For fuck's sake these boosters are insufferable. Steve is an absolute tool.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz Most compilers aren't exactly deterministic by default (and fixing that is the goal of projects like Reproducible Builds), but they're still more predictable than any slop generator you'll ever come across -
@arroz @stroughtonsmith Yeah not sure what’s so difficult to understand about this.
️@ghalldev @arroz @stroughtonsmith Ignorance, or willful ignorance? Either describes every LLM cultist.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz it’s always a bit depressing when I find out about a new pocket of mediocre tech jackasses posting twitter crap on masto. all of the guys posting “LLMs are like compilers for natural language” should have their CS degrees yanked cause they’ve proven they don’t meet the academic requirements for a CS undergrad.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz it's like watching bitcoiners talk about how they think money works
-
@arroz it’s always a bit depressing when I find out about a new pocket of mediocre tech jackasses posting twitter crap on masto. all of the guys posting “LLMs are like compilers for natural language” should have their CS degrees yanked cause they’ve proven they don’t meet the academic requirements for a CS undergrad.
@arroz “LLMs are natural language compilers”, brought to you by the same kids insisting their product is “the operating system for the web” because nothing means anything if you ignore all implementation and engineering details
-
@arroz “LLMs are natural language compilers”, brought to you by the same kids insisting their product is “the operating system for the web” because nothing means anything if you ignore all implementation and engineering details
@zzt@mas.to @arroz@mastodon.social Ah because if it's one thing compilers are known for it's being non-deterministic
-
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz @stroughtonsmith that take you reposted is hella embarassing. thanks for pointing out another slop enthusiast to mute!
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
What I see a lot in these AI guy circles is this kind of "magical thinking" about how things work.
And these (confidently expressed) naive takes are not only about LLMs, but also about countless other well-documented, well-researched topics like compilers.
Who are these guys?
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz To be honest, the whole take of the original post reads like slop. LLMs tend to conflate different concepts with each other and if you have no idea what you’re talking about, it will sound very convincing.
-
@arroz That take is another case of only considering the result, not why the result exists.
Also, I guess he's fine with outsourcing his "compiling" to a third party to which he has absolutely no control over.
Vibecoders are only interested in production. They don't care how they get there.
Looks like CWE's are back on the menu!
https://blog.vidocsecurity.com/blog/vibe-coding-security-vulnerabilities
-
@arroz it’s always a bit depressing when I find out about a new pocket of mediocre tech jackasses posting twitter crap on masto. all of the guys posting “LLMs are like compilers for natural language” should have their CS degrees yanked cause they’ve proven they don’t meet the academic requirements for a CS undergrad.
-
Vibe coded skyscrapers.
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz How does he think source-level debuggers will work under that analogy?
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@stroughtonsmith/116030136026775832
This is one of the worst takes from LLM enthusiasts.
Compilers are deterministic, extremely well tested, made out of incredibly detailed specifications debated for months and properly formalized.
LLMs are random content generators with a whole lot of automatically trained heuristics. They can produce literally anything. Not a single person who built them can predict what the output will be for a given input.
Comparing both is a display of ignorance and dishonesty.
@arroz I know who *will* be manually reviewing the generated code: the people in the black hats.
-
@arroz “LLMs are natural language compilers”, brought to you by the same kids insisting their product is “the operating system for the web” because nothing means anything if you ignore all implementation and engineering details
![[object Object]](https://media.mas.to/accounts/avatars/109/287/758/133/964/366/original/0f3099c0adfb36a0.png "[object Object]"){kind=avatar}
