> Not only that, they are impacting the actual languages people use. Why use some new / esoteric language that an LLM doesn't know much about, when you can get the same job done much faster using a language that the LLM knows well and can debug?
I don't see how this is anything new. Similar tension has always existed slowing adoption of new technology. I've resisted picking up new languages because I could implement something faster/better in languages I already know. I've been skeptical about some because the ecosystem just isn't there yet. You said "a language that the LLM knows well and can debug" when sometimes the resistance is that the new language does have as good of tooling/debugging support.
There is nothing new here and if anything LLMs could help. I've noticed the community seems pretty understanding/accepting of low quality outputs of some of these LLMs. The small corpus of a new/esoteric would mean even lower quality, but I don't think that'd be a deal breaker for some folks.
I don't see how this is anything new. Similar tension has always existed slowing adoption of new technology. I've resisted picking up new languages because I could implement something faster/better in languages I already know. I've been skeptical about some because the ecosystem just isn't there yet. You said "a language that the LLM knows well and can debug" when sometimes the resistance is that the new language does have as good of tooling/debugging support.
There is nothing new here and if anything LLMs could help. I've noticed the community seems pretty understanding/accepting of low quality outputs of some of these LLMs. The small corpus of a new/esoteric would mean even lower quality, but I don't think that'd be a deal breaker for some folks.