I don't think you want LLMs touching projects that cost over $800.000.000, even to assemble "documentation" (since the LLM can't really document in as much it's translating what it's reading, because documentation includes much more information than what's stored in the code itself).

It's a cool idea, though, I'd like to see this done as an experiment :)

> Many of the issues could potentially be solved by modern LLMs?

Yesterday I asked an LLM what customizations niri made to the KDL language.

It said niri modified the language to add single line comments with //. However if you visit the official home page of KDL https://kdl.dev/, the very first example shows single line comments as being part of the official spec. There's also a whole page dedicated to comments in the spec that mention this.

The moral of the story is LLMs are honestly really really bad and I'm sincerely concerned at how they manipulate people into thinking what they produce is accurate or trustable. I didn't believe the AI because my spidey sense said that doesn't feel right, so I double checked the real source.

It's gotten to the point where I'm finding a huge majority of the time, it provides incorrect information on really basic things. Pure hallucinations. I'm at the stage now where even if you paid me, I wouldn't use it. There's a 0% chance I'd ever consider paying for it in its current state and it's upsetting because it is killing off the web in real-time. It's becoming harder and harder to find useful and accurate information.

That's insane.

Of all the possible projects, this is the one where it's both highly feasible for humans to learn and historically critical that we have a full understanding and control of its operation.

You don't want your spacecraft that's 15.8 billion miles away pointing backwards because the AI's fairly proficient code misunderstand something.

“You’re absolutely right, I shouldn’t have jettisoned the RTG”