Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Sure, compilers are deterministic and LLMs are not. If you're asserting that a probabilistic process can't get you to a deterministic outcome, Monte Carlo integration would like to have a word.

My point was that comparing the rise of AI tooling to the rise of HLL compilers is a much better comparison than comparing it to crypto.

HLL compilers were originally seen as crutches and inferior tools and that "real" programmers used assembly. Compiler-generated code was derided as inefficient and ugly.

And it was! In the early days, a good programmer who knew the machine could outdo the compiler. But that didn't stop a huge expansion of new programmers who could write COBOL and FORTRAN but never learned assembly. And the compilers got better over time. These days it's a rare wizard who can outdo a compiler's optimizations, and it takes multiple orders of magnitude longer for those rare humans to achieve it.

LLM tooling isn't going away. Even in these very early days, it enables non-programmers to construct basic applications that work, using English requests! And the tools have gotten better on almost a monthly basis.

You can like them or not like them, just like the early programmers could like or not like compilers. But dismissing them as analogous to empty crypto hype is a bad comparison.



My comparison wasn't about the tech. It was about the proponents of said tech. A lot of people who push AI use the same sorts of arguments that people used to push crypto.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: