On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 at 13:33, Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 at 15:42, Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But now you're comparing LLMs to junior programmers! My issue is with > > comparing the role of LLMs to that of compilers or calculators. We > > definitely interact with junior programmers through natural language > > already, so nothing changes there. My point is that we interact with > > compilers and calculators through *formal languages*, and that therefore > > it's not helpful to compare LLMs to those. > > > > But we only do that (interact with compilers with formal language) > > because that was historically the only option that worked. If we could > > describe the program in natural language to the compiler and get a > > good result .... we would. > > I very much doubt that. To many of us, the best attribute of a computer > is the fact that it will do precisely as told. Natural language is > notoriously imprecise, and is thus a poor match for instructing > computers. > High level programming languages are (conditionally) deterministic. As in - from the same input you will reproducibly get the same output. Assuming you have the *exact* same version of the compiler and all dependencies. If you have a different version of the compiler, the output may change radically. This alone actually contradicts your point - *high level* programming languages do not *precisely* describe exactly what and how is going to be done. They are not precise on the action, they only describe the intent. You can have the same kind of determinism from an LLM as well - same prompt to the same version of the same LLM (with randomness surpressed) should generate the same output code. And then (supposedly) small change in the input (like setting the debug flag, just two byte change!) can cause massive changes in the final output. That is true for both LLMs and compiler outputs. Your loops may grow too large and cause a different optimisation method to be used, for example. It is not easy to predict what real effect (on code execution, resource consumption or other performance factors) will a small change in a high level language have on the end product. In assembly or machine code that is very straightforward. That is what characterises a very precise instruction set. And yet such imprecise languages like Python and JavaScript dominate the coding landscape. -- Best regards, Aigars Mahinovs
