[energy123]

I do this because I'm wagering that LLMs will keep getting better. I'm wagering that specs will maintain value while code will degrade in value (become commoditized).

Code lacks the surrounding theory that situates the code in the world [1]. My specs contain the theory that the code lacks, which makes specs more valuable in the future. Specs are proprietary data. Data holds value in a post-AGI world, not code.

I am defining specs to be more than just an architectural spec, to me it's more like I'm writing a booklet about a subject, and I'm using it to teach the LLM via in-context learning. It might need a different word than "specs".

[1] https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~remzi/Naur.pdf

[Stehfyn]

Piggybacking here; I'd describe it like a fish ladder. Instead of "teach" I'd say "orient." LLMs are a force whose magnitude is undeniable and increasing, but it's up to us humans to provide the theory that exerts the magnetic forces to naturally encourage them in the right directions.

[joshribakoff]

> I’m wagering

So isn’t that gambling, not engineering?

[Stehfyn]

It's a reductive inverse corollary, but highly skilled Blackjack players are known to hesitate hitting on 18