This is amazing, yet frightening because I'm sure someone will actually attempt to use it. It's like vibe coding on steroids.
- Each time you import a module, the LLM generates fresh code
- You get more varied and often funnier results due to LLM hallucinations
- The same import might produce different implementations across runs
There are a few thresholds of usefulness for this. Right now it’s a gimmick. I can see a world in a few years or maybe decades in which we almost never look at the code just like today we almost never look at compiled bytecode or assembly.
There's not much of a world in which we don't check up and verify what humans are doing to some degree periodically. Non-deterministic behavior will never be trusted by default, as it's simply not trustable. As machines become more non-deterministic, we're going to start feeling about them in similar ways we already feel about other such processes.
> Non-deterministic behavior will never be trusted by default, as it's simply not trustable.
Never is a long time...
If you have a task that is easily benchmarkable (i.e. matrix multiplication or algorithm speedup) you can totally "trust" that a system can non-deterministically work the problem until the results are "better" (speed, memory, etc).
I agree. At first the problems that you try to solve need to be verifiable.
But there's progress on many fronts on this. There's been increased interest in provers (natural language to lean for example). There's also been progress in LLM-as-a-judge on open-ish problems. And it seems that RL can help with extracting step rewards from sparse rewards domains.
You will always get much, much, MUCH better performance from something that looks like assembler code than from having an LLM do everything. So I think the model of "AIs build something that looks recognizably like code" is going to continue indefinitely, and that code is generally going to be more deterministic than an AI will be.
I'm not saying nothing will change. AIs may be constantly writing their own code for themselves internally in a much more fluid mixed environment, AIs may be writing into AI-specific languages built for their own quirks and preferences that make it harder for humans to follow than when AIs work in relatively human stacks, etc. I'm just saying, the concept of "code" that we could review is definitely going to stick around indefinitely, because the performance gains and reduction in resource usage are always going to be enormous. Even AIs that want to review AI work will want to review the generated and executing code, not the other AIs themselves.
AIs will always be nondeterministic by their nature (because even if you run them in some deterministic mode, you will not be able to predict their exact results anyhow, which is in practice non-determinism), but non-AI code could conceivably actually get better and more deterministic, depending on how AI software engineering ethos develop.
There was a story written by (IRRC?) Stanisław Lem: technology went to absurd level of complexity, yet was so important to daily lives that the species' survival depended on it. The knowledge of how everything worked has been long forgotten; the maintainers would occasionally fix something by applying duct tape or prayers.
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
