5 ms·
It's not necessarily just the terseness. Terseness might be a selling point for people who have already invested in training themselves to be fluent with progra
by ithkuil 7mo ago
It's not necessarily just the terseness. Terseness might be a selling point for people who have already invested in training themselves to be fluent with programming languages and the associated ecosystem of tooling.
But there is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language.
That doesn't mean the LLM is going to think on your behalf (although there is also a little bit of that involved and that's where stuff gets confusing) but it surely provides a completely different interface for turning your ideas into working machinery
- PessimalDecimal 7mo ago"[T]here is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language." "Specifying" is the load-bearing term there. They are describing what they want to some degree, how how specifically?
- marcosdumay 7mo ago> But there is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods Nah, it will be extremely surprising if even 1 such a person exists. On the other hand, there are lots of people that can write code, but still can't specify a system. In fact, if you keep increasing the size of the system, you will eventually fit every single programmer in that category.