Same as code, the llm can generate vast amounts and it seems to work, but no one understands the documentation Claude Code, or other LLMs, produce. Essentially, garbage because, to make use of it you need to be able to understand it, usually at a cost (unquantified), and if only LLMs do then what is the point?
Sure you can make Claude produce documentation & code that is readable. You need to steer it and show it how you want it to write. When it gets it wrong, find counter examples so it can learn the style you want. Otherwise it's going to write what it thinks is best. What is best for LLM comprehension and efficiency is not necessarily best for the human.
It turns out it doesn't matter, because outside of a few narrow bands like Claude Code, no one cares what documentation an LLM writes for your project, because no one is ever going to go looking for someone else's project or library to solve their problem anymore.
So either an LLM decides to pull in your project as a library for reasons, in which the LLM can understand the documentation, or else no one besides the creator is using it anyway. So it doesn't matter.
Why would anyone use someone else's AI-coded project if they can get their own version that better fits their own needs in less time?
Don't functional programmers want to make programming more difficult so that writing routine apps becomes more of an intellectual challenge and elegance of the code is a major part of that?
no. if we use that framing of yours, fp aim is to write a solution that flows like a river while imperative solution is like rolling up a ball of various solutions and then throwing it at the problem.
The point is the details of the implementation don't matter that much anymore. It's just something for the AI to work out — much like assembly code generation is for compilers.
Yes, it is awesome. Funny we got this level of capability now and we all take it in our stride. Growing up in the 80's I loved futuristic scifi, feels like I am in it now. And even I am 'just' taking it in my stride.
Speaking of the eighties, special effects were still done without CGI and typically on the cheap. That didn't make the movies and television series any less fun to watch. In the end it's about what people do with the tools, not the quality of the tools. People commenting on how these generated videos are not perfect or are getting some details wrong, look at some blockbuster movies from last century. It's very easy to spot the special effects. And it did not matter.
But yes 80s science fiction is now science fact. Talking cars like in night rider are now definitely a thing. Some can even drive themselves. The robots in Buck Rogers, Star Wars, etc. look clumsy and fake compared to the real humanoid bots we are now starting to see. More close to I Robot, which when it came out 22 years ago was pure science fiction.
> That didn't make the movies and television series any less fun to watch.
Unfortunately it doesn’t apply to everybody :( Babylon 5 was mind blowing when I was a kid, and today the space and other sci fi parts from there, when I see them on YouTube, are quite cringe. Show is still great, but that’s the part where I’d be totally fine if some modern consistent ai re-rendered cgi to something more pleasant.
What I am thinking is the way you make it 'keep going' and when you have people of the calibre of Tao doing it I kept thinking how many breakthroughs is he going to cause the LLM to find with his targetted questions :D Amazing that we have the privilege of witnessing a true expert in such a way question the LLM.
reply