[aozgaa]

Agreed.

LLM’s are fundamentally text generators, not verifiers.

They might spot some typos and stylistic discrepancies based on their corpus, but they do not reason. It’s just not what the basic building blocks of the architecture do.

In my experience you need to do a lot of coaxing and setting up guardrails to keep them even roughly on track. (And maybe the LLM companies will build this into the products they sell, but it’s demonstrably not there today)

[CharlesW]

> LLM’s are fundamentally text generators, not verifiers.

In reality they work quite well for text and numeric (via tools) analysis, too. I've found them to be powerful tools for "linting" a codebase against adequately documented standards and architectural guidance, especially when given the use of type checkers, static analysis tools, etc.

[skydhash]

The value of an analysis is the decision that will be taken after getting the result. So will you actually fix the codebase or it’s just a nice report to frame and put on the wall?