←back to thread

1479 points sandslash | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.423s | source
Show context
practal ◴[] No.44315505[source]
Great talk, thanks for putting it online so quickly. I liked the idea of making the generation / verification loop go brrr, and one way to do this is to make verification not just a human task, but a machine task, where possible.

Yes, I am talking about formal verification, of course!

That also goes nicely together with "keeping the AI on a tight leash". It seems to clash though with "English is the new programming language". So the question is, can you hide the formal stuff under the hood, just like you can hide a calculator tool for arithmetic? Use informal English on the surface, while some of it is interpreted as a formal expression, put to work, and then reflected back in English? I think that is possible, if you have a formal language and logic that is flexible enough, and close enough to informal English.

Yes, I am talking about abstraction logic [1], of course :-)

So the goal would be to have English (German, ...) as the ONLY programming language, invisibly backed underneath by abstraction logic.

[1] http://abstractionlogic.com

replies(6): >>44315728 #>>44316008 #>>44319668 #>>44320353 #>>44322194 #>>44323749 #
kordlessagain ◴[] No.44319668[source]
This thread perfectly captures what Karpathy was getting at. We're witnessing a fundamental shift where the interface to computing is changing from formal syntax to natural language. But you can see people struggling to let go of the formal foundations they've built their careers on.
replies(8): >>44319838 #>>44319876 #>>44319932 #>>44320126 #>>44321046 #>>44321371 #>>44322384 #>>44326827 #
otabdeveloper4 ◴[] No.44321371[source]
> We're witnessing a fundamental shift where the interface to computing is changing from formal syntax to natural language.

People have said this every year since the 1950's.

No, it is not happening. LLMs won't help.

Writing code is easy, it's understanding the problem domain is hard. LLMs won't help you understand the problem domain in a formal manner. (In fact they might make it even more difficult.)

replies(2): >>44322555 #>>44323757 #
1. simplify ◴[] No.44322555[source]
Let's be real, people have said similar things about AI too. It was all fluff, until it wasn't.
replies(1): >>44325094 #
2. otabdeveloper4 ◴[] No.44325094[source]
AI still doesn't have a valid and sustainable business use case.

People are just assuming that the hallucination and bullshitting issues will just go away with future magic releases, but they won't.