Compilers automated higher level reasoning, at least to a small degree. LLMs themselves are basically just compilers with a much, much, much, much more expansive set of built-in language constructs.
Can you describe the last time you asked your compiler how you should best approach an interpersonal problem, to research an investment thesis, or to figure out an org chart by analyzing communication patterns within teams?
People aren't just using AI for writing code, but for all of their decision making. AI is far from limited to writing code.
> Can you describe the last time you asked your compiler how you should best approach an interpersonal problem
Sure. I wrote out specification that described the problem. It compiled that into a description of how to deal with it.
> People aren't just using AI for writing code
Compilers have never been about producing code in particular, though, even if that is where they are most commonly used. A LaTeX compiler, for example, outputs books. To think they are about code exclusively is a grave misunderstanding of what a compiler is.
> Sure. I wrote out specification that described the problem.
The LLM usage I see from most people has the LLM write out the specification, asking clarifying questions as needed. If you're using LLMs as you describe, you're using them ineffectively.
> The LLM usage I see from most people has the LLM write out the specification
If the LLM is writing the specification, what purpose does the person serve? That is not what I'm seeing out in the wild, though. Outside of research labs, LLMs don't do anything until the user initiates.
> asking clarifying questions as needed.
Sure. Even the earliest, most primitive compilers would seek clarification if there was something it didn't understand in full.
> Sure. Even the earliest, most primitive compilers would seek clarification if there was something that it felt required more information. That's expected.
Can you tell me what the last question GCC asked you was, and can you rate its coherence in comparison to your colleagues questions?
0c3ca83 · · focus · HN ↗
This time is the first time we've automated higher level reasoning.
win311fwg · · focus · HN ↗
(No, compilers are not deterministic)
0c3ca83 · · focus · HN ↗
People aren't just using AI for writing code, but for all of their decision making. AI is far from limited to writing code.
win311fwg · · focus · HN ↗
Sure. I wrote out specification that described the problem. It compiled that into a description of how to deal with it.
> People aren't just using AI for writing code
Compilers have never been about producing code in particular, though, even if that is where they are most commonly used. A LaTeX compiler, for example, outputs books. To think they are about code exclusively is a grave misunderstanding of what a compiler is.
0c3ca83 · · focus · HN ↗
The LLM usage I see from most people has the LLM write out the specification, asking clarifying questions as needed. If you're using LLMs as you describe, you're using them ineffectively.
win311fwg · · focus · HN ↗
If the LLM is writing the specification, what purpose does the person serve? That is not what I'm seeing out in the wild, though. Outside of research labs, LLMs don't do anything until the user initiates.
> asking clarifying questions as needed.
Sure. Even the earliest, most primitive compilers would seek clarification if there was something it didn't understand in full.
0c3ca83 · · focus · HN ↗
Can you tell me what the last question GCC asked you was, and can you rate its coherence in comparison to your colleagues questions?