3 ms·
I’ve brought this up in another thread, but we already have evidence that in certain cases it is desirable to trade off specificity for just “getting something
by georgelyon 4y ago
I’ve brought this up in another thread, but we already have evidence that in certain cases it is desirable to trade off specificity for just “getting something done”, that evidence is Python. Python succeeds despite not having a serious type system, because often times you can get something that achieves your goal despite the 25 bugs in your program that would have been caught by a real type system.
On the other side of the coin, there’s C++, which is usually doing the heavy lifting underneath the underspecified-but-sufficient Python code.
My guess is that as LLMs evolve, they will more naturally fill this niche and you will have high-level, underspecified “code” (prompts) that then glued together more formal libraries (like OpenAI’s plugins).
- ehnto 4y agoI think there exists room for an intermediate layer, a framework for AI to write code in specifically. With larger "target" code blocks it can stitch together. Code is designed around humans to allow them to write specific, abritrary and precise logic with a lot of minuate, but LLMs might be better off thinking in larger business logic blocks that are testable and "sanctioned" by the framework makers for the specific problem domain.
- Pxtl 4y agoNot only that, but one of the big successes of chat AIs is their conversation. When a program does something wrong, it's hard to figure out what you said wrong. When a char AI misunderstood you, it's often quite easy to explain where the misunderstanding happened and the AI will correct itself.
- staplerr 4y agoJust look at JavaScript. Types don't matter so much, look at the modern web.
- baq 4y agoI’m working with a large js code base right now and can’t get it ported to typescript fast enough.