I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.

I’m not assuming anything. Either you have not used these tools seriously, or you’re intentionally lying here. Your description of how these tools work and their capabilities is at odds with reality. It’s dangerous to make shit up when talking to people who are well versed in a subject.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how your examples are deterministic while gAI is not.

I didn’t make any inaccurate comparisons. The whole deterministic LLM argument was just the straw man you were making. I’m merely pointing out your dishonesty here, if you choose to perceive it as a personal attack that’s on you.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt initially assuming you simply haven’t used these tools. Now, you’ve come back and emphatically stated that you have. Given that what you describe is not how these tools work, it’s very clear that you are being dishonest by your own admission. Now you’re just using sophistry to paper over that.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

I can only go by what you say here which is frankly nonsense. I’ve explained to you that any serious software project relies on practices like tests and code reviews to ensure quality of the code being produced. Whether the code is written by a tool or a human is entirely beside the point. It should be treated the same way. Anybody who’s actually written code knows that humans are fallible and make plenty of mistakes, so your argument about hallucinations applies to human written code exactly the same way. The way to deal with it in both cases is by having contracts that the code fulfills. My intention is to correct obvious misinformation that people such as yourself are spreading.