> Unless you wrote the compiler, you are 100% full of it. Even then you'd be wrong sometimes

You can check the source code? What's hard to understand? If you find it compiled something wrong, you can walk backwards through the code, if you want to find out what it'll do walk forwards. LLMs have no such capability.

Sure maybe you're limited by your personal knowledge on the compiler chain, but again complexity =/= randomness.

For the same source code, and compiler version (+ flags) you get the exact same output every time. The same cannot be said of LLMs, because they use randomness (temperature).

> LLMs are also deterministically complex, not random

What exactly is the temperature setting in your LLM doing then? If you'd like to argue pseudorandom generators our computers are using aren't random - fine, I agree. But for all practical purposes they're random, especially when you don't control the seed.