Given how poorly LLMs do with writing prompts for LLMs, I'm not sure I'd trust their judgement in designing a language for LLMs. > and the runtime requires explicit permission to touch the filesystem, network, etc This feels like more of an OS problem (or library problem) than a language problem. > Run one program against many worlds. The same code can run against the real network, a scripted fake, a recording of las…
Why do you think LLMs write prompts for LLMs badly? I use LLMs to write and refine prompts all the time. The prompts seem to come out very good. What are you basing this on?
If I ask an agent to maintain agent-facing docs like AGENTS.md then similarly it ends up with low information density and not really saying what I want it to say. Something I thought was unequivocal ends up leaving the agent with far too much scope for interpretation and judgement calls.
Perhaps I'm just Prompting It Wrong (TM) but I do find LLMs lack the theory of mind to realise that other LLM instances don't know the things that the current instance knows, and make poor calls on what to include and what not to include. It's a bit hand-wavey, but I was wondering if the same issue might transfer to language design.