3 ms·
> LLMs have no issue making definitions (interfaces/traits/abstract classes) in programming, which is formally the same activity. I ask them to form a core "sp
by skydhash 2mo ago
> LLMs have no issue making definitions (interfaces/traits/abstract classes) in programming, which is formally the same activity. I ask them to form a core "spine" of a program (basically an intelligible theory), and they do it really well.
Is it a "standard" software? Something where the patterns exists in several other software? Try with something that is novel, or is in a limited set. You will find that it will copy heavily from what exists already, going so far as lifting whole functions from another project.
- ndriscoll 2mo agoMaybe, but math also has reusable techniques and patterns. c.f. https://www.tricki.org/ https://www.tricki.org/ The goalpost moving is really getting absurd, to the point where now the machine needs to be a world-class once-a-century genius that invents entire new fields out of thin air (which are of course still relevant to humans) for it to be "intelligent". Meanwhile a well above average human struggles to even apply trivial definitions to particular problems (c.f. programmers that don't understand monoids).