The fun will be in proving those claims. I'm sure this can and has been done already today, but they won't get critical mass because a compiler is more than just the code. The GCC project represents not just a compiler, but decades of knowledge of people into programming languages and computer hardware. LLMs may be able to access and "know" the same thing, but they will never be the same thing.

Ultimately though, anyone can choose what to use. If an LLM generated compiler is better than GCC and people prefer it, so be it.

This sounds a bit too metaphysical to me. I can see why bot chess is not the same thing as human chess and we carry on with human tournaments, but why does anyone care if the compiler they're using is _not the same thing_? Like, clang is not the same as gcc, sure. Depending on the situation one may be better than the other.

Both the gcc and linux kernel have decades (centuries?) of knowledge between them, Mythos still finds buffer overflows and root exploits and much more.