4 ms·
I feel like the design of programming languages has involved some tradeoffs that have been informed by biological human psychology. I'm wondering if different t
by ftxbro 3y ago
I feel like the design of programming languages has involved some tradeoffs that have been informed by biological human psychology. I'm wondering if different tradeoffs would be more beneficial to AIs that are based on LLMs. Obviously you can write anything in any Turing complete language, I hope my point wasn't so dumb that this is a reasonable response to it.
- dtagames 3y agoI would again say, no. The only code that runs is compiled. Any interim human-oriented language is a fiction sustained only until the app is compiled. So optimizing that interim step for an LLM is a mistake. The intermediary language is for humans -- for us to debug, understand, and extend. LLMs will write the human languages that we need for coding. There's no reason to make a special one for the robots.
- ftxbro 3y agoI find it difficult to believe such a strong position. For example consider some hypothetical alternate timeline like if there were some physicist connectionist hackers who made powerful supercomputers with LLM capabilities back when we only programmed with machine language and assembly language. In that world where the ubiquitous and abstract programming language is assembly language, would it have value to create another layer of abstraction like lisp or C or whatever to help the LLMs use their digital brains more effectively?