[svdr]

I think the difference now is that traditional software ultimately comes down to a long series of if/then statements (also the old AI's like Wolfram), whereas the new AI (mainly LLM's) have a fundamentally different approach.

[globular-toast]

Look into something like Prolog (~50 years old) to see how systems can be built from rules rather than it/else statements. It wasn't all imperative programming before LLMs.

If you mean that it all breaks down to if/else at some level then, yeah, but that goes for LLMs too. LLMs aren't the quantum leap people seem to think they are.

[TheOtherHobbes]

They are from the user POV. Not necessarily in a good way.

The whole point of algorithmic AI was that it was deterministic and - if the algorithm was correct - reliable.

I don't think anyone expected that soft/statistical linguistic/dimensional reasoning would be used as a substitute for hard logic.

It has its uses, but it's still a poor fit for many problems.

[ozim]

maybe not on their own - but having enough computing power to use LLMs in a way we do now and actually using them is quite a leap.

[eloisant]

You're talking about non-deterministic algorithms, who yes are often associated with AI but existed way before LLM's