zlacker

>>Scramb+(OP)
At this point, I am starting to feel like we don’t need new languages, but new ways to create specifications.

I have a hypothesis that an LLM can act as a pseudocode to code translator, where the pseudocode can tolerate a mixture of code-like and natural language specification. The benefit being that it formalizes the human as the specifier (which must be done anyway) and the llm as the code writer. This also might enable lower resource “non-frontier” models to be more useful. Additionally, it allows tolerance to syntax mistakes or in the worst case, natural language if needed.

In other words, I think llms don’t need new languages, we do.

>>deepsq+br
So in this case an LLM would just be a less-reliable compiler? What's the point? If you have to formally specify your program, we already have tools for that, no boiling-the-oceans required