zlacker

This whole original HN post is about ghostty btw

Having the original prompts (in sequence and across potentially multiple models) can be valuable but is not necessarily useful in replicating the results because of the slot machine nature of it

>>wahnfr+(OP)
> This whole original HN post is about ghostty btw

Sure though I believe few commenters care much about ghostty specifically and are primarily discussing the policy abstractly!

> because of the slot machine nature of it

One could use deterministically sampled LLMs with exact integer arithmetic... There is nothing fundamental preventing it from being completely reproducible.

>>nullc+24
Can't do that with state of the art LLMs and no sign of that changing (as they like to retain control over model behaviors). I would not want to use or contribute to a project that embraces LLMs yet disallows leading models.

Besides, the output of an LLM is not really any more trustworthy (even if reproducible) than the contribution of an anonymous actor. Both require review of outputs. Reproducibility of output from prompt doesn't mean that the output followed a traceable logic such that you can skip a full manual code review as with your mass renaming example. LLMs produce antagonistic output from innocuous prompting from time to time, too.