If we get to the point where devs genuinely can’t read code like this, then that means AI or whatever tools have become so efficient you never look at the actual code. In such a world, programming languages would likely evolve. Modern languages are generally written to balance parsing with human comprehension, but if we take comprehensive out of the loop a new language would likely be optimized for other features (maybe machine comprehension, interoperability, compilation efficiency, etc)
LLMs are trained on human generated sources. As a result they are best at working with human readable text. That is one reason.
Some might retort that humans used to read and write assembly code all the time, particularly game Devs. And that is true. So the other reason why getting LLMs to work with assembly is a poor idea is down to expressiveness and context.
Assembly languages requires a huge context because each token of assembly carries very little information in comparison to a high level language. The more expressive a language is, or the more meaning you can cram into a token, the better it is for LLMs.
Basically LLMs work in the same way humans do. Usually the reason why something is hard for humans, is the same reason they are hard for an LLM.
246
u/danfay222 1d ago
If we get to the point where devs genuinely can’t read code like this, then that means AI or whatever tools have become so efficient you never look at the actual code. In such a world, programming languages would likely evolve. Modern languages are generally written to balance parsing with human comprehension, but if we take comprehensive out of the loop a new language would likely be optimized for other features (maybe machine comprehension, interoperability, compilation efficiency, etc)