> I think that if you give the same task to three different developers you'll get three different implementations.
Yes, but if you want them to be compatible you need to define a protocol and conformance test suite. This is way more work than writing a single implementation.
The code is the real spec. Every piece of unintentional non-determinism can be a hazard. That’s why you want the code to be the unit of maintenance, not a prompt.
imiric
I know! Let's encode the spec into a format that doesn't have the ambiguities of natural language.
klabb3OP
Right. Great idea. Maybe call it ”formal execution spec for LLM reference” or something. It could even be versioned in some kind of distributed merkle tree.
Yes, but if you want them to be compatible you need to define a protocol and conformance test suite. This is way more work than writing a single implementation.
The code is the real spec. Every piece of unintentional non-determinism can be a hazard. That’s why you want the code to be the unit of maintenance, not a prompt.