@marcoarment@mastodon.social @caseyliss@mastodon.social @siracusa@mastodon.social I was going to write a big email about this to you guys, and I might yet, but I'll condense it here. Dijkstra himself wrote about the futility of natural language programming: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html Even knowing what we know now about LLMs, I believe this to be true. The problem is that human languages are leaky and imprecise, so you'll always need something more symbolic or at least more precise. Even if we assume that LLMs are how we'll do our programming from now on, if you discover that 'frobnicate' produces better results than the verb 'create', you'll start using it, and so will other programmers. Programming languages may become pidgin languages, or dense jargon, or even legalese--anything to reduce the verbosity and ambiguity. There's a lot more to say about it, but that's the basis of it. To get the best results out of LLMs, we'll create new languages that produce more predictable results.