Natural language is ambiguous. Specifying exactly what you want in a way that is truly verifiable is the act of coding.

Bend would make Dijkstra happy even when proof checking can’t verify if the laws are what was actually meant.

I actually think Asimov is more instructive here, while Gödel and Tarski tell us the tool can’t prove itself…

Nonetheless, it is a worthwhile endeavor and I hope more rigorous practices like this catch on.

I think LLM researchers understand how LLMs work and what the limits of using natural language as an interface are. The problem is everyone else thinks they're basically magic, expecting them to be infinitely intuitive but also strictly deterministic, like the computer from Star Trek.

[dead]