All right. Honestly I could see it both ways depending on the needs of the developer. The language model could step through autonomously or with the developer.

All right. Honestly I could see it both ways depending on the needs of the developer. The language model could step through autonomously or with the developer. Thinking of how this could look like abstractly through a UI. Picture sequential timeline which consists each step the developer or the model has made through the code. A timeline that the developer could fast forward or rewind which has some implications for the LLM. There are three main areas the developer could give LLM inputs. 1. Before debugging The user could give input (Trace back, a question, ingested context (URL) before initializing debugging, instruction steps, autonomously or guided. Autonomously given the context of before debugging, it could even optionally set its own breakpoints. 2. At any step during debugging LLM might influence how the developers steps through the code. 3. Post debugging Now imagine each step through the debugger being logged to which the user could ask questions within the context of the history of the debugger. LLM could have different scoped contexts relative to the timeline of the steps of interest. Imagine the developer steps through 15 points in the code. Developer could ask about step 7 or a range of steps post debugging. LLM could be limited scope to only the previous steps including 7 or a range. Alternatively it could have knowledge of the entire step history. The underline assumption there is limiting context in some cases improves output of LLM.