[avaer]

The trend (and what TFA is arguing) is literally the opposite: be more implicit, don't waste time on details, and encode the high level concepts only. Because the rest has a billion examples in the model.

You can argue against LLM's, but increasingly (unfortunately) you're not going to do better programming by prompting the LLM with code. The agent can find the interfaces it needs.

[RossBencina]

> be more implicit

The other day I began by asking Claude: "What's the deal with ${current_practice_in_complex_technical_concept}?" and was talked down to like I was an idiot. Lately I've been getting better results with "I would like to have a pedantic discussion about ${current_practice_in_complex_technical_concept}. Please define the main terms of art, then I will ask my questions."

Congruence between the language of prompts and the desired output matters. Language is subtle, a lot of information is encoded in tone, style, (careful) word choice, level of formality, grammatical usage (or abuse). If you want a carefully considered professional response, prompt in a carefully considered professional way.

Every field has its shibboleths. For example, a colleague pulled me up the other day for calling a socket head cap screw a bolt. Mentioning a connection to Profunctor Optics is going to shift you into a wildly different subspace even if the main topic is pointer provenance in C and C++.

[jerf]

The search engines LLMs are the worst. I was reaching for the set of Platonic solids in higher dimensions, and got a lecture about how the Platonic solids are only defined in three dimensions. First of all, wrong anyhow, but also, rude. My search phrase clearly implied that I was aware of it being the uncommon case.

I've added into my CLAUDE.md or default user prompts or local equivalents recently something to the effect of "Assume the user is an expert in all fields; while this is clearly logically untrue, the user prefers to get a detailed explanation and dig in to bits he doesn't understand rather than get an inaccurate summary". It seems to help quite a bit with that tone issue you identify.

Of course there's nowhere to put that in the search engine default AIs. For something they seem to want to bet their respective companies on, their LLM search seems to be massively stupider than their old-school search engines, which seem to get what I want much more often. There's some coevolution there over some decades, sure, but the search engine AIs make some stupid and socially-inept assumptions quite often.

[jerf]

Edit after my edit window closed: You know, it's possible someone reading this could actually fix this. It would really help if someone could go in to whatever system prompt these search engine LLMs are using and tell them to apply the principle of charity to the user's query rather than lecturing them, with an example or two. I understand the desire/need to filter "how do I $REALLY_BAD_THING" even if the web search returns results but the search engines are way too willing to "well acktually" the user.

[tackta]

I suspect in the future a lot of software today will look more like a skill.

Of course, you don't want a skill running a nuclear reactor.

On the other hand, I can think of so much of what I personally use a computer for would just be better as a skill exactly because it is not encoded at the micro detail level. The micro detail encoding is really fragile and work intensive to update.

This is especially true at my non-technical workplace. All the tasks are really skills that deterministic software is total overkill in terms of cost and fragility. Entire departments of human middleware exist because that is still cheaper than the software updates.

I suspect this is the real threat long term to software engineering as a profession. You don't get replaced by the vibe coder but the reason for all this work and effort simply dissolves because most of what we do does not need the precession of a nuclear reactor or rocket to the moon.