zlacker

>>gnanag+(OP)
Feels like a dead end optimisation ala the bitter lesson.

No LLM has seen enough of this language vs. python and context is now going to be mostly wordy not codey (e.g. docs, specs etc.)

>>nrhrjr+M2
I suspect this is wrong. If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data. It makes no sense to me that a superior intelligence would be unable to trivially learn a new language syntax and apply its semantic knowledge to the new syntax. So I believe that either LLMs will improve to the point that they will easily pick up a new language or we will realize that LLMs themselves are the dead end.

>>norir+y4
> If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data.

Yes.

This is exactly how LLMs work. For a given input, an LLM will output a non-deterministic response that approximates its training data.

LLMs aren’t intelligent. And it isn’t that they don’t learn, they literally cannot learn from their experience in real time.

>>legost+if
There is some intellegence. It can figure stuff out and solve problems. It isnt copy paste. But I agree with your point. They are not intellegent enough to learn during inference. Which is the main point here.