←back to thread

Naur's "Programming as Theory Building" and LLMs replacing human programmers

(ratfactor.com)
108 points bertman | 1 comments | 28 Apr 25 06:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.242s | source
Show context
falcor84 ◴[28 Apr 25 13:25 UTC] No.43821300[source]▶
> First, you cannot obtain the "theory" of a large program without actually working with that program...

> Second, you cannot effectively work on a large program without a working "theory" of that program...

I find the whole argument and particularly the above to be a senseless rejection of bootstrapping. Obviously there was a point in time (for any program, individual programmer and humanity as a whole) that we didn't have a "theory" and didn't do the work, but now we have both, so a program and its theory can appear "de novo".

So with that in mind, how can we reject the possibility that as an AI Agent (e.g. Aider) works on a program over time, it bootstraps a theory?

replies(4): >>43821340 #>>43821987 #>>43822329 #>>43822492 #
1. raincom ◴[28 Apr 25 15:07 UTC] No.43822329[source]▶
Yes, indeed. They think that every circular argument is vicious. Not at all, there are two kinds of circularity: virtuous circularity; vicious circularity. Bootstrapping falls under the former. Check [1] and [2]

[1] https://www.hipkapi.com/2011/03/10/foundationalism-and-virtu...

[2] Brown, Harold I. “Circular Justifications.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994 (1994): 406–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/193045.