Isn't there more indirection as long as LLMs use "human" programming languages?

If you think of the training data, e.g. SO, github etc, then you have a human asking or describing a problem, then the code as the solution. So I suspect current-gen LLMs are still following this model, which means for the forseeable future a human like language prompt will still be the best.

Until such time, of course, when LLMs are eating their own dogfood, in which case they - as has already happened - create their own language, evolve dramatically, and cue skynet.

▲

6177c40f 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More indirection in the sense that there's a layer between you and the code, sure. Less in that the code doesn't really matter as such and you're not having to think hard about the minutiae of programming in order to make something you want. It's very possible that "AI-oriented" programming languages will become the standard eventually (at least for new projects).

	▲	recursive 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		One benefit of conventional code is that it expresses logic in an unambiguous way. Much of "the minutiae" is deciding what happens in edge cases. It's even harder to express that in a human language than in computer languages. For some domains it probably doesn't matter.

▲

layer8 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s not clear how affordances of programming languages really differ between humans and LLMs.