‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Learning Programming in an Age of LLMs

263 points · 195 comments · moneroloop2018

  1. js8 · · focus · HN ↗
    I answered this to myself - stop worrying about LLMs. It's pretty simple: due to Curry-Howard isomorphism, programming languages are just notations for some type of formal logic.

    Now ask yourself a question, what language do you want to maintain the programs in? Do you think natural language is going to be easier and more maintainable than formal logic?

    The answer is no. So you need programmers, people who can read the formal description and adapt it to new requirements.

    LLMs are amazing technology, but the truth is - natural language just kinda sucks. Therefore, you don&#x27;t really need them (see also <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;AI_effect" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;AI_effect ).

    I think people love LLMs for the same reasons they love magicians. But just like the magician employs a hidden trick, LLM just runs some algorithm you don&#x27;t see or understand.

    So worrying about LLMs taking programming job is kinda like worrying that a magician will take a warehouse worker job, because they can levitate stuff. Meanwhile, we already have automated programmer - it&#x27;s called a compiler.

    1. jappgar · · focus · HN ↗
      No offense, but &quot;natural language sucks&quot; is the refuge of the illiterate logician.

      Complex language is clearly superior in nature. We&#x27;re now finding out that that is true in computation as well.

      1. juvvel · · focus · HN ↗
        Well, almost all scientific domains have developed a form of structured and formal language, because natural language is too ambiguous. There&#x27;s &quot;code&quot; everywhere, not just in programming.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.