Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

nerd-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#81

Post by AdieuToLogic »

throwaway150 wrote: post #58
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know if this sentence was written by LLM or not but people will definitely use LLMs to revise and refine posts. No amount of complaining will stop this. It is the new reality. It's a trend that will only continue to grow. Using an LLM to generate a post with the implication it is the author's own thoughts is the quintessential definition of intellectual laziness. One might as well argue that plagiarism is p…

> Using an LLM to generate a post You are talking about an entirely different situation that I purposely avoided in my comment.

>>> people will definitely use LLMs to revise and refine posts

>> Using an LLM to generate a post

> You are talking about an entirely different situation that I purposely avoided in my comment.

By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution.

Gotcha.

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#82

Post by wrs »

gnanagurusrgs wrote: post #2

Creator here. This started as a dumb question while using Claude Code: "Why is Claude writing TypeScript I'm supposed to read?" 40% of code is now machine-written. That number's only going up. So I spent some weekends asking: what would an intermediate language look like if we stopped pretending humans are the authors? NERD is the experiment. Bootstrap compiler works, compiles to native via LLVM. It's rough, probably…

Now that we know code is a killer app for LLMs, why would we keep tokenizing code as if it were human language? I would expect someone's fixing their tokenizer to densify existing code patterns for upcoming training runs (and make them more semantically aligned).

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#83

Post by throwaway150 »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #81
throwaway150 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using an LLM to generate a post You are talking about an entirely different situation that I purposely avoided in my comment.

>>> people will definitely use LLMs to revise and refine posts >> Using an LLM to generate a post > You are talking about an entirely different situation that I purposely avoided in my comment. By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution. Gotcha.

> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution.

Way to stretch my comment and make it mean something I didn't mean! You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM.

First, I wasn't talking about generating whole software features. Second, pretending as if I implied anything like that even remotely is a disingenuous and frankly a bad-faith style of debating.

You are looking for some sort of disagreement when there is none. I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So really confused why you've to come here and look for disagreements when there is none and be combative, no less? If this is your style of debating, I refuse to engage further.

Next time, you might want to review the HN guidelines and be less combative: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#84

Post by raddan »

sublinear wrote: post #76
alienbaby wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they are being more successful in their use of llm's than you are?

Yes "success" as they understand it, and they are always so smug while refusing to show or even discuss the code the LLM produced. A poor craftsman may blame his tools, but some tools really are the wrong ones for the job.

I keep having this nagging suspicion that the biggest AI boosters just aren’t very good programmers. Maybe they cannot see all the subtle bugs. I’m not an amazing coder but I frequently have “wait, stop!” moments when generating code with an LLM.

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#85

Post by Animats »

ksec wrote: post #78

Edited for Formatting. My take on the timeline; ( Roughly I think some of them are in between but may be best not to be picky about it ) 1950s: Machine code 1960s: Assembly 1970s: C 1980s: C++ 1990s: Java 2000s: Perl / PHP / Python / Ruby 2010s: Javascripts / Frameworks 2020s: AI writes, humans review But the idea is quite clear once we have written this out, we are moving to higher level abstraction every 10 years.…

2030s: Humans unnecessary.

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#86

Post by nrhrjrjrjtntbt »

norir wrote: post #41
nrhrjrjrjtntbt wrote: post #20

Feels like a dead end optimisation ala the bitter lesson. No LLM has seen enough of this language vs. python and context is now going to be mostly wordy not codey (e.g. docs, specs etc.)

I suspect this is wrong. If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data. It makes no sense to me that a superior intelligence would be unable to trivially learn a new language syntax and apply its semantic knowledge to the new syntax. So I believe that either LLMs will improve to the point that they will easily pick up a new…

> superior intelligence

You are talking about the future. But if we are talking about the future the bitter lesson applies even more so. The super intelligence doesnt need a special programming language to be more productive. It can use Python for everything and write bug free correct code fast.

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#87

Post by nrhrjrjrjtntbt »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #80
norir wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this is wrong. If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data. It makes no sense to me that a superior intelligence would be unable to trivially learn a new language syntax and apply its semantic knowledge to the new syntax. So I believe that either LLMs will improve to the point that they will easily pick up a new…

> If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data. Yes. This is exactly how LLMs work. For a given input, an LLM will output a non-deterministic response that approximates its training data. LLMs aren’t intelligent. And it isn’t that they don’t learn, they literally cannot learn from their experience in real time.

There is some intellegence. It can figure stuff out and solve problems. It isnt copy paste. But I agree with your point. They are not intellegent enough to learn during inference. Which is the main point here.

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#88

Post by AdieuToLogic »

throwaway150 wrote: post #83
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> people will definitely use LLMs to revise and refine posts >> Using an LLM to generate a post > You are talking about an entirely different situation that I purposely avoided in my comment. By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution. Gotcha.

> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution. Way to stretch my comment and make it mean something I didn't mean! You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM. First, I wasn't talking about generating…

>> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution.

> You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM.

I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation. The use of "add feature X" was to keep the response succinct and served as a placeholder.

> Next time, you might want to review the HN guidelines and be less combative

And you might want to review same after originally authoring:

  These incessant complaints about LLM-written text don't 
  help and they make the comment threads really boring. HN 
  should really introduce a rule to ban such complaints just 
  like it bans complaints about tangential annoyances like 
  article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button 
  breakage

Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans

#89

Post by throwaway150 »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #88
throwaway150 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution. Way to stretch my comment and make it mean something I didn't mean! You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM. First, I wasn't talking about generating…

>> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution. > You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM. I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation. The use of "a…

> I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation.

The extrapolation led to something I didn't imply. If you're making the extrapolation to add a point in addition to what I said, I'm sure that'd have been very welcome if you hadn't posed it in a combative manner that comes across as a 'take down' of my comment.

Going back to where it all began:

> Using an LLM to generate a post with the implication it is the author's own thoughts is the quintessential definition of intellectual laziness.

Extrapolation, yes. But non sequitur because my comment not even remotely implied generating a whole post using LLM. So your extrapolation stands well on its own. I just don't see the need to pose it as a sort of "take down" on my comment.

What I find really funny is that in reality like you, I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So we must be in agreement? Yet you manage to find disagreements where there are none and be combative about it. Well done, sir!

> And you might want to review same after originally authoring

I have. I've found nothing in the guidelines that forbid me from expressing my frustrations over the abundant supply of trite comments. Nothing there forbids me from begging the HN overlords to discourage trite comments about LLM-written text. They already discourage comments about tangential issues like website format, name collisions, back-button issues. They might as well discourage comments about LLM-written text. That was my request. The HN overlords may not pay heed to my request and that's fine. But after reading the guidelines, I don't see why I cannot make the request I've in my mind.

Post reply on HN