[alganet]

This idea that some developers have some "mental model" and others not is an extraordinary claim, and I don't see extraordinary evidence.

It sounds like a good thing, right? "Wow, mental model. I want that, I want to be good and have big brain", which encourages you to believe the bullshit.

The truth is, this paper is irrelevant and a waste of time. It only serves the purpose of creating discussion around the subject. It's not science, it's a cupholder for marketing.

[imiric]

You couldn't be more wrong. If you've ever programmed, or worked with programmers, that is not an extraordinary claim at all, but a widely accepted fact.

A mental model of the software is what allows a programmer to intuitively know why the software is behaving a certain way, or what the most optimal design for a feature would be. In the vast majority of cases these intuitions are correct, and other programmers should pay attention to them. This ability is what separates those with a mental model and those without.

On the other hand, LLMs are unable to do this, and are usually not used in ways that help build a mental model. At best, they can summarize the design of a system or answer questions about its behavior, which can be helpful, but a mental model is an abstract model of the software, not a textual summary of its design or behavior. Those neural pathways can only be activated by natural learning and manual programming.

[alganet]

> You couldn't be more wrong.

Explanation missing.

> If you've ever programmed, or worked with programmers, that is not an extraordinary claim at all.

One step ahead of you. I already say this is engineered to encourage belief "I want to be good, big brain, and open source is good, I want to be good big brain".

It's marketing.

> A mental model of the software is what allows a programmer [yadda yadda]

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying the paper doesn't provide any relevant information regarding the phenomena.

> Those neural pathways can only be activated by natural learning and manual programming.

Again, probably true. But the paper doesn't provide any relevant information regarding this phenomena.

---

Your answer seems to disagree with me, but displays a disjointed understanding of what I'm really addressing.

---

As a lighthearted fun analogy, I present:

https://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf

The paper does not prove the existence of chickens. It says chicken a lot, but never addresses the phenomena of chickens existing.

[imiric]

I'm confused by what your point is, then. You want evidence of an abstraction that exists in the minds of experienced developers? That's like asking for evidence of humor or love. We accept these things as real because of shared experiences, not because of concrete evidence.

[alganet]

My point is that the paper has no point, the article on the paper is a stretch, and none of this is relevant in any way except creating chatter.

It's useless from the research perspective. But it is a cup-holder for marketing something.

I already laid this out very clearly in my first comment.