Interesting read, and some interesting ideas, but there's a problem with statements like these:
> Sean proposes that in the AI future, the specs will become the real code. That in two years, you'll be opening python files in your IDE with about the same frequency that, today, you might open up a hex editor to read assembly.
> It was uncomfortable at first. I had to learn to let go of reading every line of PR code. I still read the tests pretty carefully, but the specs became our source of truth for what was being built and why.
This doesn't make sense as long as LLMs are non-deterministic. The prompt could be perfect, but there's no way to guarantee that the LLM will turn it into a reasonable implementation.
With compilers, I don't need to crack open a hex editor on every build to check the assembly. The compiler is deterministic and well-understood, not to mention well-tested. Even if there's a bug in it, the bug will be deterministic and debuggable. LLMs are neither.
> Sean proposes that in the AI future, the specs will become the real code. That in two years, you'll be opening python files in your IDE with about the same frequency that, today, you might open up a hex editor to read assembly.
> It was uncomfortable at first. I had to learn to let go of reading every line of PR code. I still read the tests pretty carefully, but the specs became our source of truth for what was being built and why.
This doesn't make sense as long as LLMs are non-deterministic. The prompt could be perfect, but there's no way to guarantee that the LLM will turn it into a reasonable implementation.
With compilers, I don't need to crack open a hex editor on every build to check the assembly. The compiler is deterministic and well-understood, not to mention well-tested. Even if there's a bug in it, the bug will be deterministic and debuggable. LLMs are neither.