Did we?! You and Mark Zuckerberg maybe.

"Am I nothing to you?" --Tim Cook

It's the same as dealing with a human. You convey a spec for a problem and the language you use matters. You can convey the problem in (from your perspective) a clear way and you will get mixed results nonetheless. You will have to continue to refine the solution with them.

Genuinely: no one really knows how humans work either.

Again, completely irrelevant.

That’s what we’re upset about ay?

No one is claiming that level of productivity.

Oh yes they are. People are claiming 100x improvements, which is completely insane. But they do claim it.

OK sure, there are always lunatics on the fringe, but OP is casting that argument out as if they’re attacking a mainstream opinion.

Why would someone care about a destructive addiction that's plaguing the lives of the majority of the planet, leading to mental health issues and proliferating massive levels of misinformation. I wonder. Freedom to be manipulated by algorithms, yay!

"Recreational high" has nothing to do with it. Medicare part D is literally referred to as "prescription drug plan".

If people have the same denial about anti-depressants, then my critique applies as well. But an allowance for the need to bootstrap would seem to apply more, plus the generally more complex mechanisms and nuanced effects making it harder to understand the effects for yourself.

You're completely missing the point, probably intentionally. Context exists. Everyone knows medicine in general is drugs, there are also recreational drugs/narcotics. It's usually very obvious which of these someone is referring to. They are separate categories of things with separate implications. You know this of course.

The comment I initially responded to was reacting to the usage of the word "drug". And yes while there is a distinction in categories with some distinct implications, there is also a lot of commonality between them. And the reaction I was responding to indicated a strong desire to reject those commonalities.

Some people do though. Then the "Your coffee/food/electronics/exercise/(etc but increasingly tenuous) are a drug" people start to jump in...

> Programmers won’t adhere to an elegant paradigm anyway

It’s much easier to get an LLM to adhere, especially when you throw tooling into the loop to enforce constraints and style. Even better when you use Rust with its amazing type system, and compilation serves as proof.

Rust as a good language for LLMs. That’s interesting.

I wonder if you could design a language that is even more precise and designed specifically around use by LLMs. We will probably see this.

Are you just exposing mastra cli commands to Claude Code in md context? I’d love you to elaborate on this if you have time.

Seconded!