> it is fundamentally unsuited for the task.
Very deepity. But you’ve apparently misunderstood mathematical notation - it’s just a shorthand, nothing stops one from expressing the same concepts in natural language.
> Furthermore, natural language specifications are, at best, wishful thinking.
More deepitism. There are plenty of counterexample to this, your claim only serves to suggest that you have no experience with software development.
> Feed this into a stochastic parrot
To might want to look for terminology in papers that were published after GPT 3.5 was released, it’ll make you sound less like an Amish person objecting to the “English”. Then again you used “clanker” in another comment, so I don’t hold out much hope.
Very deepity. But you’ve apparently misunderstood mathematical notation - it’s just a shorthand, nothing stops one from expressing the same concepts in natural language.
> Furthermore, natural language specifications are, at best, wishful thinking.
More deepitism. There are plenty of counterexample to this, your claim only serves to suggest that you have no experience with software development.
> Feed this into a stochastic parrot
To might want to look for terminology in papers that were published after GPT 3.5 was released, it’ll make you sound less like an Amish person objecting to the “English”. Then again you used “clanker” in another comment, so I don’t hold out much hope.