Yes. They know what you meant. You missed the point of their response.

A compiler is semantically deterministic. It has a spec. Give it an input and you can know exactly what the output will do. And if there's edge cases where behaviour is undefined, thats also well known apriori.

(And yes, to get ahead of the nitpickers, I know the specific sequence of bytes the compiler will emit can vary (hence the difficulty of reproducible builds), hence why I said "semantically").

LLMs do not share this property. At all. I mean not even close

They are a completely new and different class of tool. They are not just a step up the abstraction layer. They're not compilers for English. To call them that is to fundamentally not grok what a compiler is or does.

That doesn't make them bad. It just makes that analogy, and any conclusions you might draw from it, bad.