I built a programming language that LLMs can't use

Re:I built a programming language that LLMs can't use by Spivak on Sunday October 18, 2026 @08:05PM (#50146812)

Trivial for a human to use while being able to independently arbitrarily scale the difficulty for a wide class of LLMs does I think say something about a possible inherent limitation in what they can do.

The fact that you can make something obtuse and difficult to use for everyone is less interesting than what is displayed here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I built a programming language that LLMs can't use by ang_cire on Monday October 19, 2026 @01:28AM (#50148697)

Except that many of the limitations here are actually not limitations of LLMs at all, e.g. putting in words or phrases that the LLM providers flag. There's nothing about naming a function "hack into a computer" that would be difficult for an LLM to understand, but it will get Anthropic to flag the prompt and refuse to work on it.

and there's nothing about what is described here that strikes me as not being "obtuse and difficult to use" for humans. Here's a quote from the spec:

> The language treats adverbs as identifiers, but referring to them requires anagrams.

"The design is very human!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I built a programming language that LLMs can't use by dom96 on Monday October 19, 2026 @05:51AM (#50150384)

Anagrams are pretty easy for a human to generate actually. There are also certain anagrams which are easy to understand for a human, for eaxmple <- that's one.

The attempt is certainly made to keep it as human friendly as possible, there is definitely room for improvement though. I'd love ideas of how to make it easier for humans while keeping it hard for LLMs.

[ Parent | on HN ]