> Do you debug JVM bytecode? V8's internals?
Comparing LLMs and compilers is so bizarre.
Whole poast looks LLM written with catchy nothingburger headlines. Please don't do this. Very difficult to read.
Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
91–100 of 110 posts
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#92Earlier 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. > 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…
>> I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation.
> The extrapolation led to something I didn't imply.
I extrapolated my interpretation of your position to make the point that to "revise and refine" is equivalent to "generate", in that the latter is the effect of the former without shrouding the source of the work.
> ... 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.
This is your interpretation. Mine is that I have not made ad hominem responses nor anything similar.
> 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.
This is the second time you've used the phrase "take down." Having a differing opinion and expressing such is not a "take down."
> What I find really funny is that in reality like you, I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So we must be in agreement?
In that we most certainly are. In addition, I believe those who use LLMs to produce content as if it were their own work is unacceptable. This might be different for someone else, depending on one's definition of what is plagiarism.
>> And you might want to review same after originally authoring
> I have. I've found nothing in the guidelines that forbid me from ...
Guidelines do not forbid, they suggest for the betterment of everyone's experience.
> ... expressing my frustrations over the abundant supply of trite comments.
See:
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but
please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at
the rest of the community.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
people's work.
There are no "HN overlords", only Zuul[0].
(that last one was a joke)
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#93hhmm. in the repo you write:
"every descriptive variable name, ... — all designed for humans to read and write"
do you really think the llm will not benefit from using good names?
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#94“Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?”
This belongs in a sitcom, and it actually did until now.
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#95LLMs just can't come up with anything they haven't seen in their training data. Try any obscure language, and they will stumble. So for them to become fluent in a new language, you will need a massive corpus of data. Not only do you need to invent a new language, but you also need to create all the sample code for it.
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#96>NERD is what source code becomes when humans stop pretending they need to write it. It is so annoying to realise mid read that a piece of text was written by an LLM. It’s the same feeling as bothering to answer a call to hear a spam recording.
I don't know how you can be so sure about that sentence being written by LLM. I can imagine it is perfectly possible that a human could've written that. I mean, on some day I might write a sentence just like that. I think HN should really ban complaints about LLM written text. It is annoying at best and a discouraging insinuation at worst. The insinuation is really offensive when the insinuation is false and the auth…
>I don't know how you can be so sure about that sentence being written by LLM.
I envy you if you can’t tell, genuinely. It means you don’t have to put up with generated text as much as I do. It’s not really an ambiguous case.
>No amount of complaining will stop this. It is the new reality. It's a trend that will only continue to grow. These incessant complaints about LLM-written text don't help and they make the comment threads really boring.
As long as people keep placing me in a position to read things they didn’t bother to write, I will keep pointing it out. If this place became content with being fed slop, I’d go.
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#97Creator 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…
Wait, you wrote the code? Why AI didn't do it if people are redundant.
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#98Creator 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…
I like the idea, but this is going be a very very long journey to develop a completely new machine-friendly language like this while LLMs still have many limitations now.
Very true. Thought it will be worthy of a side project :)
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#99Creator 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…
I love the idea! I’m glad you did this. What about something like clojure? It’s already pretty succinct and Claude knows it quite well. Plus there are heavily documented libraries that it knows how to use and are in its training data.
Thats an excellent point, it was a hard choice for me to say no translations at this point. But definitely can think about this as a design choice at the byte code / compiler level as this evolves.
Do jump in to contribute, these are amazing thoughts.
Re: Nerd: A language for LLMs, not humans
#100Creator 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…
If humans are supposed to be reviewing code why does reducing reviewability make any sense?
Your big idea seems to be changing the tech so that developers have an excuse to be even less responsible than they already are.