alt Hacker NewsThis is the most handwaving per paragraph I've ever seen.
I think a fair summarization of your point is "LLM generated programs work well enough often enough to not need more constraints or validation than natural language", whatever that means.
If you take that as a true thing then sure why would you go deeper (eg, I never look at the compiled bytecode my high level languages produce for this exact reason - I'm extremely confident that translation is right to the point of not thinking about it anymore).
Most people who have built, maintained, and debugged software aren't ready to accept the premise that all of this is just handled well by LLMs at this point. Many many folks have lots of first hand experience watching it not be true, even when people are confidently claiming otherwise.
I think if you want to be convincing in this thread you need to go back one step and explain why the LLM code is "good enough" and how you determined that. Otherwise it's just two sides talking totally past each other.
>This is the most handwaving per paragraph I've ever seen.
Yes: "LLM generated programs work well enough often enough to not need more constraints or validation than natural language" if a fair summarization of my point.
Not sure the purpose of "whatever that means" that you added. It's clear what it means. Thought, casual language seems to be a problem for you. Do you only always discuss in formally verified proofs? If so, that's a you problem, not an us or LLM problem :)
>Most people who have built, maintained, and debugged software aren't ready to accept the premise that all of this is just handled well by LLMs at this point.
I don't know who those "most people are". Most developers already hand those tasks to LLMs, and more will in the future, as it's a market/job pressure.
(I'm not saying it's good or good enough as a quality assessment. In fact, I don't particularly like it. But I am saying it's "good enough" as in, people will deem it good enough to be shipped).