Post #2796031
2026-03-11 23:21 UTC
RE: https://toot.yosh.is/@yosh/116190471042101677
@yosh@toot.yosh.is I was trying to contribute to the question of language that bans (or at least requires transparency about use of) LLMs but not compilers.
n the analogy of https://chaos.social/@yosh@toot.yosh.is/116190472066903497, you can sure fix a bug in source code generated by an LLM, but when comparing the LLM to a compiler, that would be fixing the product of the compiler (sure possible but tedious), whereas fixing a bug in the compiler ensures that henceforth, all instances of that bug are fixed.
Replies (1)
-
@yosh@toot.yosh.is 2026-03-11 23:41
@chrysn@chaos.social ah, like that. I see, thank you! So like, I was really thinking about this from like a legal perspective. Like, in practice I agree with what you're saying. But I don't think that would hold up to scrutiny in a court tbh. Because most compilers are not deterministic either, do regularly have regressions, and may not always accept patches from third parties. We both know and agree that LLMs and compilers are different. But i don't know how to precisely draw that distinction.