I like this step towards greater rigor when working with LLM's. But part of me can't help but feel like this is essentially reinventing the concept of programming languages: formal and precise syntax to perform specific tasks with guarantees. I wonder where the final balance will end up between the ease and flexibility of everyday language, and the precision / guarantees of a formally specified language.
It won't necessarily turn into some that is fundamentally the same as a current programming language. Rather than a "VM" or "interpreter" or "compiler" we have this "LLM". Even if it requires a lot of domain knowledge to program using an "LLM-interpreted" language, the means of specification (in terms of how the software code is interpreted) may be different enough that it enables easier-to-write, more robust, (more…
if (unspeakable_things): return negatory_good_buddy
I see this happen a few times per day where the UI triggers a cancel even on its own fake typing mode and overwrites a user response that has at least half-rendered the trigger-warning-inducing response.
It's pretty clear from a design perspective that this is intended to be proxy to facial expressions while being worthy of an MVP postmortem discussion about what viability means in a product that's somewhere on a spectrum of unintended consequences that only arise at runtime.