> The trajectory over the last 3 years do not lead me to believe that it will be true in the future.

Everything changed in November of 2025 with Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2 a short time later. StrongDM is now building out complex systems with zero human intervention. Again, stop and actually use these models first, then engage in discussion about what they can and can't do.

> But, lets assume that in some future, it is true: If that is the case, then Lisp is a better representation than those other languages for LLMs to program in; after all, why have the LLMs write in Javascript (or Java, or Rust, or whatever), which a compiler backend lowers into an AST, which then gets lowered into machine code.

That's your human brain thinking it knows better. The "bitter lesson" of AI is that more data=better performance and even if you try to build a system that encapsulates human-brain common sense, it will be trounced by a system simply trained on more data.

There is vastly, vastly more training data for JavaScript, Java, and Rust than there is for Lisp. So, in the real world, LLMs perform better with those. Unlike us, they don't give a shit about notation. All forms of token streams look alike to them, whether they involve a lot of () or a lot of {;}.

> That's your human brain thinking it knows better. The "bitter lesson" of AI is that more data=better performance and even if you try to build a system that encapsulates human-brain common sense, it will be trounced by a system simply trained on more data.

I feel you glossed over what I was saying.

Let me try to rephrase: if we ever get to a future where humans are not needed to look at or maintain code again, all the training data would be LLM generated.

In that case, the ideal language for representing logic in programming is still going to be a Lisp-like one.