As the lowly programmer, rather than a compiler engineer or a CPU architect, I will never dig into the reasons why my tools decided to do something crazy. I'm much more likely to just try random things until it works. How is that different to how people use LLMs? Even here the opposite is true, the LLM enables me to ACTUALLY dig into the lower levels and work around those issues! It will happily dig into the Chrome source to find exactly why my page rendered weirdly, or why an optimization didn't kick in!
replyI mean, that's kinda on you, though, right? If you're just going to poke at your code until it works, that's your choice, I guess, but I wouldn't call it good programming.
replyThe point is that it's reasonable and possible to predict the compiler's assembly output from high-level source. Maybe each individual can't do it, but they could, with a little learning.
With LLMs, you just can't predict the output for a given prompt, and can't predict how changing that prompt will change the output (or how much it will change the output). Even the people who build and work on LLMs every single day and know them intimately can't.