3 ms·
One could argue that LLMs learning programming languages made for humans (i.e. most of them) is using the wrong interface as well. Why not use machine code?
by steve1977 8mo ago
One could argue that LLMs learning programming languages made for humans (i.e. most of them) is using the wrong interface as well. Why not use machine code?
- embedding-shape 8mo agoWhy would human language by the wrong interface when they're literally language models? Why would machine code be better when there is probably magnitude less of training material with machine code? You can also test this yourself easily, fire up two agents, ask one to use PL meant for humans, and one to write straight up machine code (or assembly even), and see which results you like best.
- BoredPositron 8mo agobecause they are inherently text based as is code?
- steve1977 8mo agoBut they are abstractions made to cater to human weaknesses.
- falkensmaize 8mo agoSo you want LLMs to write a bunch of black box code that humans won’t be able to read and reason about easily? That will definitely end well.
- Harvy 8mo agoIsn't that what LLMs are?
- falkensmaize 8mo agoNot if you can review the code.
- steve1977 8mo agoI guess for many vibe coders the code created by Codex or Claude could as well be assembly in terms of their (the vibe coders) ability to review it.
- adwn 8mo ago> One could argue that LLMs learning programming languages made for humans (i.e. most of them) is using the wrong interface as well. Then go ahead and make an argument. "Why not do X?" is not an argument, it's a suggestion.