[cardigan]

Starts off with an interesting idea (programming is perfectly specified versus being underspecified but more efficient due to shared context) but then devolves significantly: neural networks are not the be all end all of smart computers.

Interesting part is that a smart computer could resolve ambiguities in a human description of program desired in a way similar to humans. Missing part to this idea is that unless it's perfect, it would need a way to explain choices and results and probably some dialog system to iteratively improve upon how it resolved ambiguities.

E.g, make me an app like Uber but for cats -> here is a version you can play with -> oh I don't really like the cat icon, can we change it -> sure, which of these would you like ; etc etc

Computer requires ever changing human context, and maybe could have individualized context. So it has to learn over time. The point is to maximize efficiency of getting things made: how little needs to be specified before computer gives you something you accept / how fast can you go from some vague idea in your head to working acceptable software.

You should at least be able to get as good as an arbitrarily large number of people who lived a very similar life to yours and were put in a time bubble where you could talk with them to have them write software for you, assuming they're organized very well and highly motivated and great programmers and all that.