_because compiling a code language into machine language is deterministic_.
If you think that compiling and explaining in English something to an LLM so it outputs code is the same activity, I just hope to never have you as a coworker.
Because the compiler does a deterministic transform on the input. And the input is less ambiguous than natural language and following more strict rules.
Just to be clear, when I say that it is impossible even to self review, it was an indication of how difficult is to review code of colleagues.
Proofreading an essay before submitting it is an anti pattern?
[dead]
So much this. We don't review the assembly/machine-code that the compiler creates, why do we still review the code the AI generates?
If it works as desired then ship it; if it doesn't then iterate until it does.
_because compiling a code language into machine language is deterministic_.
If you think that compiling and explaining in English something to an LLM so it outputs code is the same activity, I just hope to never have you as a coworker.
This is only OK where “it works” is the only criteria for accepting a software change.
Because the compiler does a deterministic transform on the input. And the input is less ambiguous than natural language and following more strict rules.
Why ask obvious things?
That's such an AI bro take
Did you re-read your comment before hitting reply?