3 ms·

So why can't I use documentation as a requirements spec and just feed it to a LLM for implementation ? With lots of examples in the documentation that can serve

So why can't I use documentation as a requirements spec and just feed it to a LLM for implementation ? With lots of examples in the documentation that can serve as test cases for the generated code.

bunderbunder 2y ago
The same reason succeeding with outsourced development is so dang hard: it's a monkey's paw.
- euroderf 2y ago
  But wouldn't you agree that LLLM's will improve a lot faster than outsourcing does ?
  - williamdclt 2y ago
    that's still to be proven. At the moment it can't do what you describe for any meaningful piece of functionality, there's no certainty that it will be able to anytime soon
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    No. The problem is fundamental: you need a certain level of mind meld to be able to get away with leaving things unstated and assuming the other person will know what you mean, or can figure out the right thing to do for themself. When you don't have that, you have to compensate by making your explanation of what you want as specific and precise as possible. Which, just like in the story The Monkey's Paw, turns out to be infeasible because of the fundamental sloppiness of natural language as a communication medium. The level of mind meld you need to make natural language communication behave well comes out of domain expertise and a certain amount of time spent working together and getting to know each other. Outsource developers and LLMs both lack it for reasons that are admittedly different, but comparably unfixable.
datadrivenangel 2y ago
If you're willing to write a very detailed requirements spec you can just... write ruby or python code in a framework and have a working application...
- euroderf 2y ago
  It would be a marketable skill to write a spec with the required levels of (a) detail, (b) lack of ambiguity, and (c) lack of stupid assumptions.

3 ms·

So why can't I use documentation as a requirements spec and just feed it to a LLM for implementation ? With lots of examples in the documentation that can serve

by euroderf 2y ago

So why can't I use documentation as a requirements spec and just feed it to a LLM for implementation ? With lots of examples in the documentation that can serve as test cases for the generated code.

bunderbunder 2y ago
The same reason succeeding with outsourced development is so dang hard: it's a monkey's paw.
- euroderf 2y ago
  But wouldn't you agree that LLLM's will improve a lot faster than outsourcing does ?
  - williamdclt 2y ago
    that's still to be proven. At the moment it can't do what you describe for any meaningful piece of functionality, there's no certainty that it will be able to anytime soon
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    No. The problem is fundamental: you need a certain level of mind meld to be able to get away with leaving things unstated and assuming the other person will know what you mean, or can figure out the right thing to do for themself. When you don't have that, you have to compensate by making your explanation of what you want as specific and precise as possible. Which, just like in the story The Monkey's Paw, turns out to be infeasible because of the fundamental sloppiness of natural language as a communication medium. The level of mind meld you need to make natural language communication behave well comes out of domain expertise and a certain amount of time spent working together and getting to know each other. Outsource developers and LLMs both lack it for reasons that are admittedly different, but comparably unfixable.
datadrivenangel 2y ago
If you're willing to write a very detailed requirements spec you can just... write ruby or python code in a framework and have a working application...
- euroderf 2y ago
  It would be a marketable skill to write a spec with the required levels of (a) detail, (b) lack of ambiguity, and (c) lack of stupid assumptions.