Assembly line robots are still a bit different from LLMs directly generating binaries though, right?
An assembly line robot is programmed with a very specific repeatable task that can easily be quality tested to ensure that there aren't manufacturing defects. An LLM generating binaries is doing this one off, meaning it isn't repeatable, and the logic of the binary isn't human auditable meaning we have to trust that it does what was asked of it and nothing more.
There's a fundamental difference between a compiler and a generative LLM algorithm, though. One is predictable, repeatable, and testable. The other will answer the same question slightly differently every time its asked.
Would you trust a compiler's byte code if it spit out slightly different instructions every time you gave it the same input? Would you feel confident in the reliability and performance of the output? How can you meaningfully debug or performance profile your program when you don't know what the LLM did and can't reproduce the issue locally short of running the exact copy of the deployed binary?
Comparing compilers and LLMs really is apples and oranges. That doesn't mean LLMs aren't sometimes helpful or that they should never be used in any situation, but LLM fundamentally are a bad fit for the requirements of a compiler.
QA, acceptance testing whatever, no different from buying closed source software.
Only those that never observed the replacement of factory workers by complete robot based chains can think this will never happen to them.
Here is a taste of the future,
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/products/powe...