"Until prompt-to-binary is reliable enough that nobody reads the intermediate code, the analogy doesn't hold."
1. OK, let's create 100 instances of prompt under the hood, 1-2 will hallucinate, 3-5 will produce something different from 90% of remaining, and it can compile based on 90% of answers
2. computer memory is also not 100% reliable , but we live with it somehow without man-in-the-middle manually check layer?
I wonder what ECC is for. So, unless you're Google and you're having to deal with "mercurial cores"...
Also, sorry, but what did I just actually attempt to read?
Computer memory, even cheap consumer grade stuff, has much higher reliability than 90%. Otherwise your computer would be completely unusable!