alt Hacker News> it is fundamentally unsuited for the task.
Very deepity. But you’ve apparently misunderstood mathematical notation - it’s just a shorthand, nothing stops one from expressing the same concepts in natural language.
> Furthermore, natural language specifications are, at best, wishful thinking.
More deepitism. There are plenty of counterexample to this, your claim only serves to suggest that you have no experience with software development.
> Feed this into a stochastic parrot
To might want to look for terminology in papers that were published after GPT 3.5 was released, it’ll make you sound less like an Amish person objecting to the “English”. Then again you used “clanker” in another comment, so I don’t hold out much hope.
Very deepity?!? You lack basic grammar skills, yet here you are lecturing me about how mathematical notation is just syntactic sugar over natural language. That’s exactly the point: we already have a construct for telling computers what to do. We don’t need to use something subpar to express our intent.