←back to thread

Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

(danieldelaney.net)
858 points cryptophreak | 2 comments | 04 Feb 25 16:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
croes ◴[04 Feb 25 16:22 UTC] No.42934439[source]▶
Natural language isn’t made to be precise that’s why we use a subset in programming languages.

So you either need lots of extra text to remove the ambiguity of natural language if you use AI or you need a special precise subset to communicate with AI and that’s just programming with extra steps.

replies(10): >>42934517 #>>42934537 #>>42934619 #>>42934632 #>>42934651 #>>42934686 #>>42934747 #>>42934909 #>>42935464 #>>42936139 #
empath75 ◴[04 Feb 25 16:28 UTC] No.42934537[source]▶
AIs actually are very good at this. They wouldn't be able to write code at all otherwise. If you're careful in your prompting, they'll make fewer assumptions and ask clarifying questions before going ahead and writing code.
replies(5): >>42934703 #>>42934744 #>>42935525 #>>42938037 #>>42943211 #
9rx ◴[04 Feb 25 16:38 UTC] No.42934703[source]▶
> If you're careful in your prompting

In other words, if you replace natural language with a programming language then the computer will do a good job of interpreting your intent. But that's always been true, so...

replies(1): >>42934782 #
benatkin ◴[04 Feb 25 16:42 UTC] No.42934782[source]▶
Being careful in your prompting doesn’t imply that. That can also be thought of as just using natural language well.
replies(1): >>42934796 #
9rx ◴[04 Feb 25 16:43 UTC] No.42934796[source]▶
What separates natural language from programming language is that natural language doesn't have to be careful. Once you have to be careful, you are programming.
replies(2): >>42934824 #>>42937380 #
benatkin ◴[04 Feb 25 16:44 UTC] No.42934824[source]▶
It does have to be careful at times if you’re going to be effective with natural language.
replies(1): >>42934843 #
9rx ◴[04 Feb 25 16:45 UTC] No.42934843[source]▶
Certainly there is a need for care outside of computers too, like in law, but legal documents are a prime example of programs. That's programming, written using a programming language, not natural language. It is decidedly not the same language you would use for casual conversation and generally requires technical expertise to understand.
replies(2): >>42935176 #>>42936643 #
1. benatkin ◴[04 Feb 25 16:59 UTC] No.42935176{6}[source]▶
People can often be observed to be deliberately making an effort in casual, social, natural language conversation. It flows for some people more than others. Try watching Big Bang Theory and see characters at times being deliberate with their words and at other times responding automatically.

An LLM can do increasingly well as a fly on the wall, but it’s common for people using an LLM to be less collaborative with an LLM and for them to expect the LLM to structure the conversation. Hence the suggestion to be careful in your prompting.

replies(1): >>42935298 #
2. 9rx ◴[04 Feb 25 17:07 UTC] No.42935298[source]▶
> at times being deliberate with their words and at other times responding automatically.

Right. On one side you have programming language and on the other natural language.

They can intermingle, if that is what you are trying to say? You can see this even in traditional computer programming. One will often switch between deliberate expression and casual, natural expression (what often get called comments in that context).