> I think you're spiritually correct that there are lots of reasons to use extremely strict languages with AI

> With dynamic languages where the model has a ton of training data, like Python, the agents are really good at writing code that just works.

I'm confused how the former supports the latter here.

Surely, you mean that LLMs are not the right kind of "AI". Languages like Haskell expose how fundamentally porous LLMs are with information.

I wouldn't even say it's the dynamic nature of Python that leads to good results, but the consistency. Javascript is the obvious counterexample. There's far more javascript out there to train on than any other programming language, yet LLMs are terrible at writing it too.