News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by mike_hearn on Thursday March 19, 2026 @05:13AM (#47436718)
Your argument is far too dependent on observations made about the model's ability with Haskell, which is irrelevant. The concepts in Haskell are totally different to almost any other language - you can't easily "generalize" from an imperative strict language like basically everything people really use to a lazy pure FP language that uses monads for IO like Haskell. The underlying concepts themselves are different and Haskell has never been mainstream enough for models to get good at it.

Pick a good model, let it choose its own tools and then re-evaluate.

Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by reedlaw on Thursday March 19, 2026 @01:30PM (#47442886)
Why is Haskell irrelevant to the argument that LLMs can't reliably permute programming knowledge from one language to another? In fact, the purity of the language and dearth of training data seems like the perfect test case to see whether concepts found in more mainstream languages are actually understood.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by mike_hearn on Friday March 20, 2026 @04:53AM (#47452097)
Because human programmers routinely fail to do that too. Haskell is an obscure language that came out of academic research. Several of the core semantics (like lazyness by default) didn't get adopted anywhere else and are only found in Haskell.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by reedlaw on Friday March 20, 2026 @07:29AM (#47453148)
Then I would say this is another proof that LLMs lack intellect or ability to reason about universals. See https://michaelmangialardi.substack.com/i/186405810/test-4-p...