> We can be mostly confident that the compiler will generate correct machine code based on correct source code.
Recently got email about gcc 14.2, they fixed some bugs in it. Can we trust it now, these could be the last bugs. But before that it was probably a bad idea to trust. No, even compiler's output requires extensive testing. Usually it's done at once, just final result of coding and compilation.
> Their output is not deterministic
yes.
> Their weights and the sources thereof are mostly unknown to us
Some of them are known. Does it make you feel better. There are too many weights, so you are not able to track its 'thinking' anyway. There are some tools which sort of show something. Still doesn't help much.
> We cannot really be confident that an LLM will produce correct output based on correct input
No, we can't. But it's so useful when it works. I'm using it regularly for small utilities and fun pictures. Even though it can give outright wrong answers for relatively simple math questions. With explanations and full confidence.
Recently got email about gcc 14.2, they fixed some bugs in it. Can we trust it now, these could be the last bugs. But before that it was probably a bad idea to trust. No, even compiler's output requires extensive testing. Usually it's done at once, just final result of coding and compilation.
> Their output is not deterministic
yes.
> Their weights and the sources thereof are mostly unknown to us
Some of them are known. Does it make you feel better. There are too many weights, so you are not able to track its 'thinking' anyway. There are some tools which sort of show something. Still doesn't help much.
> We cannot really be confident that an LLM will produce correct output based on correct input
No, we can't. But it's so useful when it works. I'm using it regularly for small utilities and fun pictures. Even though it can give outright wrong answers for relatively simple math questions. With explanations and full confidence.