Author here! This comment is kind of getting dragged here and elsewhere but I actually think it's not completely ridiculous. You can (and we have) presented git-style merge conflicts to an LLM and it will mostly fix them in ways that no algorithm can.
One example of this is if you and I both add a similar sentence in different spots in the document, asking an LLM to merge this will often result in only one of the sentences being accepted. It's not perfect but it's the kind of thing you can't get in any other technology!
With that all said I don't think LLMs REPLACE merge algorithms. For one, to get sensible output from the LLMs you generally need a diff of some kind, either git style or as the trace ouput of something like eg-walker.
One example of this is if you and I both add a similar sentence in different spots in the document, asking an LLM to merge this will often result in only one of the sentences being accepted. It's not perfect but it's the kind of thing you can't get in any other technology!
With that all said I don't think LLMs REPLACE merge algorithms. For one, to get sensible output from the LLMs you generally need a diff of some kind, either git style or as the trace ouput of something like eg-walker.