So I know these are just benchmarks, but apparently Elixir is one of the best languages to use with AI, despite having a smaller training dataset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV1EcfZSdCM and https://github.com/Tencent-Hunyuan/AutoCodeBenchmark/tree/ma...

Furthermore, it's actually kind of annoying that the LLMs are not better than us, and still benefit from having code properly typed, well-architected, and split into modules/files. I was lamenting this fact the other day; the only reason we moved away from Assembly and BASIC, using GOTOs in a single huge file was because us humans needed the organization to help us maintain context. Turns out, because of how they're trained, so do the LLMs.

So TypeScript types and tests actually do help a lot, simply because they're deterministic guardrails that the LLM can use to check its work and be steered to producing code that actually works.

▲

dnautics 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think LLMs benefit from having code properly typed (at the call definition). It's costly to have to check a possibly remote file to check. The LLM should be able to intuit what the types are at the callsite and elixir has ~strong conventions that LLMs probably take advantage of

▲

baseonmars 4 hours ago | parent [-]

llms benefit greatly from feedback and typing/type errors are one of the fastest and easiest methods of feedback to give to an llm.

	▲	dnautics 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Think about fitts law: the fastest place to click under a cursor is the location of the cursor. For an LLM the least context-expensive feedback is no feedback at all. I think codebases that are strongly typed sometimes have bad habits that "you can get away with" because of the typing and feedback loops, the LLM has learned this. https://x.com/neogoose_btw/status/2023902379440304452?s=61