[creesch]

I am not sure if you thought through the implications of your proposal. LLMs are trained on examples in the training material. If something is new and isn't accessible because it lacks tangible examples the adoption rate will be lower, so there will be less training material and therefore LLMs will not be of use here.

In fact, that entire aspect of LLMs is something that is not talked about as often. But is worth a whole discussion in itself. If I remember correctly, the availability of training material for a technology already has slightly impacted more niche corners of the tech world.

[poisonborz]

Software should still come with a documentation that LLMs can train on, plus they have all the learnings from interactions with developers asking about it - who will more and more just go this route (and following whatever guidance they get) and not thinking of searching for other material, let alone write guides for others. I'm not saying this is all that good, but that's the reasonable outcome.

[creesch]

Given it has been a few days it might be unlikely that you read it. But I figured I'd reply anyway in case you do.

I mean this with no hostile intend, but have you honestly stopped and thought about what you did type down here?

What I mean by that is, have you looked at the complete picture to see if what you are saying makes sense in relation to what you initially said.

You questioned the need for documentation. Now you are saying there needs to be good documentation for LLMs to train on. Good documentation for LLMs to train on is actually much more extensive than than the documentation written for humans to begin with. So, you are effectively saying there needs to be more documentation.

Secondly, how can developers ask about something when they don't have decent documentation to start with.