I've found the same: strong types are disproportionately valuable in LLM coding vs human coding because they essentially function as context and the typechecker actively enforces correctness

In aviation, there is the notion of "dual path", which means two ways to do anything. Each functions as a backup to the other.

The best dual path systems are when they use different technology. Hence, an error in one is highly unlikely to infect the other.

This is what static typing provides.

It's basically a myriad of unit tests without writing them down (in full).

> strong types are disproportionately valuable in LLM coding vs human coding because they essentially function as context and the typechecker actively enforces correctness

One could argue that this was a large benefit for human coding long before LLMs became useful.

It is why I always preferred strongly-typed languages.

And once we had practical strongly-typed languages with implicit type inference I really couldn't wrap my head around why anyone would prefer dynamic typing other than just inertia due to that being what they were used to.

I wouldn't say it's disproportionate. Strong static typing is massively valuable for humans too. Maybe it's just more obvious to some people because you actually can write the same large program twice using the same "person" and a different language.

Previously studies into the benefits of static typing for humans were always a bit flawed because you can't do that with people. And tbh I don't know why but there are a surprising number of people that don't appreciate static typing. My guess is a combination of ego and laziness, which doesn't apply to LLMs.