[shsush]

> it should be as concise as possible

What’s more concise than code? From my experience, by the time I’ve gotten an English with code description accurate enough for an agent I could have done it myself. Typing isn’t a hard part.

LLMs/agents have many other uses, but if you’re not offloading your thinking you’re not really going any faster wrt letting them write code via a prompt.

[handoflixue]

> What’s more concise than code?

The word "Tetris" is significantly more concise than the source code for Tetris.

"Create a Tetris clone" is a valid four-word prompt. It's not going to produce a perfect one shot, but it'll get you 90% of the way there.

> I could have done it myself. Typing isn’t a hard part.

No, but it is slow. Claude can put together Tetris in 5 minutes. I most definitely cannot.

[9rx]

A traditional programming language still wins there. "git clone $TETRIS_CLONE_REPO" is fewer words, gets you 100% of the way, and only takes seconds to produce the result.

But the topic at hand is about novel problems. Can you describe your novel solution to an LLM in a natural language with less effort than a programming language that is already designed for describing novel solutions as clearly and concisely as possible?

[gregoryl]

I find it quite interesting; there seems to be a set of AI enthusiasts who heavily offload thinking onto the LLM. There has to be difference in how they function, as I find as soon as I drift into letting the LLM think for me, productivity plummets.