zlacker

Yes, essentially a higher level programming language than what we currently have. A programming language that doesn't have strict syntax, and can be expressed with words or code. And like any other programming language, it includes specifications for the tests and expectations of the result.

The programming language can look more like code in parts where the specification needs to be very detailed. I think people can get intuition about where the LLM is unlikely to be successful. It can have low detail for boilerplate or code that is simple to describe.

You should be able to alter and recompile the specification, unlike the wandering prompt which makes changes faster than normal version control practices keep up with.

Perhaps there's a world where reading the specification rather than the compiled code is sufficient in order to keep cognitive load at reasonable levels.

At very least, you can read compiled code until you can establish your own validation set and create statistical expectations about your domain. Principally, these models will always be statistical in nature. So we probably need to start operating more inside that kind of framework if we really want to be professional about it.

>>deepsq+(OP)
Simply put whatever you write should produce the same output regardless of how many times you execute it. The more verbose you make it, the more pointless it becomes.

More terse the better.

>>kamaal+la
for the sake of being downvoted: MASM.

>>tosapp+Mi
An LLM could speak FPGA.

Good luck auditing that.

>>deepsq+(OP)
We already have exceptionally high level languages, like Inform7 [0]. The concept doesn't work all that well. Terseness is a value. Its why we end up with so many symbol-heavy languages. Yes, there are tradeoffs, but that is the whole of computer science.

We didn't end up with Lean and Rust, for a lack of understanding in how to create strong specifications. Pascal-like languages fell out of favour, despite having higher readability.

[0] https://learnxinyminutes.com/inform7/