Hacker News Reader

Comment by tjr | Hacker News Reader

Being a nondeterministic tool, the output for a given input can vary. Rather than having a solid plan of, "if I provide this input, then that will happen", it's more like, "if I do something like this, I can expect something like that, probably, and if not, then try again until it works, I suppose".

What are the productivity gains? Obviously, it must vary. The quality of the tool output varies based on numerous criteria, including what programming language is being used and what problem is trying to be solved. The fact that person A gets a 10x productivity increase on their project does not mean that person B will also get a 10x productivity increase on their project, no matter how well they use the tool.

But again, tool usage itself is variable. Person A themselves might get a 10x boost one time, and 8x another time, and 4x another time, and 2x another time.

View on HN

Non determinism does not imply non correctness. You can have the LLM do 10 different outputs, but maybe all 10 are valid solutions. Some might be more optimal in certain situations, and some might appeal to different people aesthetically.

Nondeterminism indeed does not imply non-correctness.

All ten outputs might be valid. All ten will almost certainly be different -- though even that is not guaranteed.

The OP referred to the notion of there being no manual; we have to figure out how to use the tool ourselves.

A traditional programming tool manual would explain that you can provide input X and expect output Y. Do this, and that will happen. It is not so clear-cut with AI tools, because they are -- by default, in popular configurations -- nondeterministic.

We are one functional output guarantee away from them being optimizing compilers.

Of course, we maybe never get there :)

Why would one opt to use an LLM-based AI tool as a compiler? It seems that would be extraordinarily complex over traditional compilers, but for what benefit?

It would be, in its ideal state a vague problem to concrete and robust implementation compiler.

A star trek replicator for software.

Obviously we are nowhere near that, and we may never arrive. But this is the big bet.

>A star trek replicator for software

That's a very interesting way to put it.

Non determinism of AI feels like a compiler which will on same input code spit out different executable on every run. Fixing bugs will become more like a ritual to satisfy whims of the machine spirit.

But how different? Compilers do, in fact, spit out different binaries with each run. There are timestamps and other subtle details embedded in them (esp compiler version and linking) that make the same source result in a different binary. "That's different"; "that's not the same thing!" I see you thinking. As long as the AI prompt "make me a login screen" results in a login screen appropriate for the rest of the code, and not "rm -rf ~/", does it matter if the indeterminism produces a login page with a Google login page before the email login button or after?

Also interesting is the possibility that a 10x boost for person A might still be slower than person B not using AI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com