Andrej Karpathy: Software in the era of AI [video]

I'm not sure about the 1.0/2.0/3.0 classification, but it did lead me to think about LLMs as a programming paradigm: we've had imperative & declarative, procedural & functional languages, maybe we'll come to view deterministic vs. probabilistic (LLMs) similarly.

    def __main__:
        You are a calculator. Given an input expression, you compute the result and print it to stdout, exiting 0.
        Should you be unable to do this, you print an explanation to stderr and exit 1.

(and then, perhaps, a bunch of 'DO NOT express amusement when the result is 5318008', etc.)

Why bother using human language to communicate with a computer? You interact with a computer using a programming language—code—which is more precise and effective. Specifically: → In 1.0, you communicate with computers using compiled code. → In 2.0, you communicate with compilers using high-level programming languages. → In 3.0, you interact with LLMs using prompts, which arguably should not be in natural human language. Nonetheless, you should communicate with AGIs using human language, just as you would with other human beings.

Why bother using higher-level programming languages to communicate with a computer? You interact with a computer using assembly - raw bit shifting and memory addresses - which is more precise and effective.

Using assembly is not really more precise in terms of solving the problem. You can definitely make an argument that using a higher level language is equally if not more precise. Especially since your low level assembly will be limited to which architectures it can run on, you can state that the c++ that generates that assembly is "more precisely defining a calculator program".