It’s crazy to think that Instagram Reels, owned by Meta, is preferable to TikTok now. At least Reels now is at least competitive in terms of content - unlike two years ago when people were worried about TikTok being banned and Reels was not a good alternative.
Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs? I feel like what would be good for LLMs might not be the same thing that is good for humans (but I have no evidence or data to support this, just a hunch).
The problem with this is the reason LLMs are so good at writing Python/Java/JavaScript is that they've been trained on a metric ton of code in those languages, have seen the good the bad and the ugly and been tuned to the good. A new language would be training from scratch and if we're introducing new paradigms that are 'good for LLMs but bad for humans' means humans will struggle to write good code in it, making the training process harder. Even worse, say you get a year and 500 features into that repo and the LLM starts going rogue - who's gonna debug that?
For example, Claude can fluently generate Bevy code as of the training cutoff date, and there's no way there's enough training data on the web to explain this. There's an agent somewhere in a compile test loop generating Bevy examples.
A custom LLM language could have fine grained fuzzing, mocking, concurrent calling, memoization and other features that allow LLMs to generate and debug synthetic code more effectively.
If that works, there's a pathway to a novel language having higher quality training data than even Python.
I recently had Codex convert an script of mine from bash to a custom, Make inspired language for HPC work (think nextflow, but an actual language). The bash script submitted a bunch of jobs based on some inputs. I wanted this converted to use my pipeline language instead.
I wrote this custom language. It's on Github, but the example code that would have been available would be very limited.
I gave it two inputs -- the original bash script and an example of my pipeline language (unrelated jobs).
The code it gave me was syntactically correct, and was really close to the final version. I didn't have to edit very much to get the code exactly where I wanted it.
This is to say -- if a novel language is somewhat similar to an existing syntax, the LLM will be surprisingly good at writing it.
>Has anyone tried creating a language that would be good for LLMs?
I’ve thought about this and arrived at a rough sketch.
The first principle is that models like ChatGPT do not execute programs; they transform context. Because of that, a language designed specifically for LLMs would likely not be imperative (do X, then Y), state-mutating, or instruction-step driven. Instead, it would be declarative and context-transforming, with its primary operation being the propagation of semantic constraints. The core abstraction in such a language would be the context, not the variable. In conventional programming languages, variables hold values and functions map inputs to outputs. In a ChatGPT-native language, the context itself would be the primary object, continuously reshaped by constraints. The atomic unit would therefore be a semantic constraint, not a value or instruction.
An important consequence of this is that types would be semantic rather than numeric or structural. Instead of types like number, string, bool, you might have types such as explanation, argument, analogy, counterexample, formal_definition.
These types would constrain what kind of text may follow, rather than how data is stored or laid out in memory. In other words, the language would shape meaning and allowable continuations, not execution paths. An example:
@iterate:
refine explanation
until clarity ≥ expert_threshold
There are two separate needs here. One is a language that can be used for computation where the code will be discarded. Only the output of the program matters. And the other is a language that will be eventually read or validated by humans.
Most programming languages are great for LLMs. The problem is with the natural language specification for architectures and tasks. https://brannn.github.io/simplex/
"Hi Ralph, I've already coded a function called GetWeather in JS, it returns weather data in JSON can you build a UI around it. Adjust the UI overtime"
At runtime modify the application with improvements, say all of a sudden we're getting air quality data in the JSON tool, the Ralph loop will notice, and update the application.
The Arxiv paper is cool, but I don't think I can realistically build this solo. It's more of a project for a full team.
In my 30 years in industry -- "we need to do this for the good of the business" has come up maybe a dozen times, tops. Things are generally much more open to debate with different perspectives, including things like feasibility. Every blue moon you'll get "GDPR is here... this MUST be done". But for 99% of the work there's a reasonable argument for a range of work to get prioritized.
When working as a senior engineer, I've never been given enough business context to confidently say, for example, "this stakeholder isn't important enough to justify such a tight deadline". Doesn't that leave the business side of things as a mysterious black box? You can't do much more than report "meeting that deadline would create ruinous amounts of technical debt", and then pray that your leader has kept some alternatives open.
Seems like it should work. I do not have experience with that condition. A quick search online (patella tendonitis hyaluronic acid) yielded this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22526713/
So they are using hyaluronic acid injections for patella tendonitis. Taking hyaluronic acid orally would probably take longer for effects compared to injections. Most people would prefer the injections because they feel safer for a doctor to do all the work. I prefer the tablets. If you have the money, I guess go for the injections. I would use the H.A. tablets. (With a tall glass of water, and do not take at the same time as blood-thinning medication, like pain killers or drugs.)
People often will use .doc rather than .docx when they’re trying to convert to a format that non-Word apps are more likely to be able to parse.
And bad formatting can result in an almost unreadable document. For example all bullet levels becoming the same, which is an example of something I’ve seen before.
I agree. We still need people like the author to write things down. But I do think that LLMs will be one of the important methods of consumption for this material. Many/most people will still just directly read what the author writes, but a large percentage of people will get it via an LLM -- and I think that's a good thing.
How long were they doing it when people would just steal their content with no attribution? Or do you personally thank every stack overflow that helped you?
It's disappointing, but not surprising, that people thought the president would make any really impact on inflation. That said, with global conditions improving it looks like we could've actually seen a drastically larger reduction in inflation if not for the tariffs. The goals of the tariffs seem so misaligned with what the country needs - again not surprising that we're doing something the opposite of what we need - and again also not surprising that his supporters don't seem to care.
I think the real issue is that for the powers that be, inflation is seen as either neutral or a good thing. The only people it hurts is the working class and the blame is nebulous. So it is used as a tool to increase taxes without changing laws, lower the cost of debt, and cut labor wages since they don't get pay raises commensurate with inflation. So I think it is a trick played upon the working class to screw them over in the long term while the wealthy are protected because all their assets simply go up in value with inflation. I think the target inflation rate should be 0%, not 2%. I simply don't believe the justification for the 2% target.
We're well above 2% anyway, I doubt they will ever hit that again - they are already having to cut rates because job market is frozen, and that will increase inflation pressure.
I track my spend each year and my personal actual inflation rate has averaged about 4.5% over past 5 years. And I'm pretty low income, my spending is all core stuff.
>It's disappointing, but not surprising, that people thought the president would make any really impact on inflation
Except that a president, in normal times, COULD make an impact on inflation, both directly and indirectly.
What is surprising, is that after a completely failed presidency that saw a marked decrease in middle class prosperity, people thought that Donald Trump, of all people, could bring inflation down.
Ask more widely. People want reasonable services from their government, and tighter regulation of markets, with elimination of profit-taking middlemen.
They want democratic socialism.
Meanwhile, the right wing has been telling them that public libraries and public schools and everything good except profit -- is communism.
> People want reasonable services from their government
Yes, though the definition of "reasonable" is a real sticking point
> and tighter regulation of markets
This is less clear to me, but I would agree people want less fraud and deception in markets
> with elimination of profit-taking middlemen
I don't think many people think about this at all, and it's another very nebulous term
> They want democratic socialism.
No, democratic socialists want democratic socialism. Most Americans do not.
> Meanwhile, the right wing has been telling them that public libraries and public schools and everything good except profit -- is communism.
I disagree with basically everything the current incarnation of the Republican party is doing or stands for, and silly statements like this aren't helpful.
People don't "essentially want communism" by advocating for socialist policy. Serious economists will tell you that it is impossible to transition America's free market into a planned economy. We're capitalist through thick and thin.
Yet there is a sizeable number of us who consider seriously promises to "lower prices of X" like it's a thing that can be done by decree. It's disappointing is all.
Many prices can be lowered by-decree. For example, Apple's 30% App Store fee is entirely arbitrary. That could be legislated into lower costs for consumers without being a fully planned economy.
The disappointment comes from faith in capitalism lowering prices naturally through competition. The 30% isn't competing against shit.
it's about the dream of being able to have capital though, not actually about having capital. most people do not like the idea of a death tax even though most people will never have enough wealth where it would matter.
Exactly, people didn't used to even imagine there was any way to change nor think free-enterprise should be compromised for any special interests, the outcome had always been negative when lobbyists got their way too often with either party.
Remember why Ronald Reagan and the bulk of the American people from both parties absolutely hated Communism so much?
It wan't mainly the economic differences from a free-market system; that barely made it onto the radar and was largely academic.
It was the dictatorship aspect that was so disgusting and anti-American as can be.
Dismal economic considerations under Communist governments were well-recognized as a logical result of dictatorship, that had been obvious for centuries.
Otherwise there wouldn't have been as much ambition for subjects to withdraw from dictator/monarchy regimes and settle in America to begin with.
reply