[fpaf]

Besides the ability to deal with text, I think there are several reasons why coding is an exceptionally good fit for LLMs.

Once LLMs gained access to tools like compilers, they started being able to iterate on code based on fast, precise and repeatable feedback on what works and what doesn't, be it failed tests or compiler errors. Compare this with tasks like composing a powerpoint deck, where feedback to the LLM (when there is one) is slower and much less precise, and what's "good" is subjective at best.

Another example is how LLMs got very adept at reading and explaining existing code. That is an impressive and very useful ability, but code is one of the most precise ways we, as humans, can express our intent in instructions that can be followed millions of times in a nearly deterministic way (bugs aside). Our code is written in thoroughly documented languages with a very small vocabulary and much easier grammar than human languages. Compare this to taking notes in a zoom call in German and trying to make sense of inside jokes, interruptions and missing context.

But maybe most importantly, a developer must be the friendliest kind of human for an LLM. Breaking down tasks in smaller chunks, carefully managing and curating context to fit in "memory", orchestrating smaller agents with more specialized tasks, creating new protocols for them to talk to each others and to our tools.... if it sounds like programming, it's because it is.

[rhubarbtree]

LLMs are good at coding (well, kinda, sometimes) because programmers gave away their work away for free and created vast training data.

[Lio]

I don’t think “giving away” has much to do with it.

I mean we did give away code as training data but we also know that AI companies just took pirated books and media too.

So I don’t think gifting has much to do with it.

Next all the Copilot users will be “giving away” all their business processes and secrets to Microsoft to clone.