A lot of the current hype around LLMs revolves around one core idea, which I blame on Star Trek:

Wouldn't it be cool if we could use natural language to control things?

The problem is that this is, at the fundamental level, a terrible idea.

There's a reason that mathematics doesn't use English. There's a reason that every professional field comes with its own flavour of jargon. There's a reason that contracts are written in legalese, not plain natural language. Natural language is really bad at being unambiguous.

When I was a small child, I thought that a mature civilisation would evolve two languages. A language of poetry, that was rich in metaphor and delighted in ambiguity, and a language of science that required more detail and actively avoided ambiguity. The latter would have no homophones, no homonyms, unambiguous grammar, and so on.

Programming languages, including the ad-hoc programming languages that we refer to as 'user interfaces' are all attempts to build languages like the latter. They allow the user to unambiguously express intent so that it can be carried out. Natural languages are not designed and end up being examples of the former.

When I interact with a tool, I want it to do what I tell it. If I am willing to restrict my use of natural language to a clear and unambiguous subset, I have defined a language that is easy for deterministic parsers to understand with a fraction of the energy requirement of a language model. If I am not, then I am expressing myself ambiguously and no amount of processing can possibly remove the ambiguity that is intrinsic in the source, except a complete, fully synchronised, model of my own mind that knows what I meant (and not what some other person saying the same thing at the same time might have meant).

The hard part of programming is not writing things in some language's syntax, it's expressing the problem in a way that lacks ambiguity. LLMs don't help here, they pick an arbitrary, nondeterministic, option for the ambiguous cases. In C, compilers do this for undefined behaviour and it is widely regarded as a disaster. LLMs are built entirely out of undefined behaviour.

There are use cases where getting it wrong is fine. Choosing a radio station or album to listen to while driving, for example. It is far better to sometimes listen to the wrong thing than to take your attention away from the road and interact with a richer UI for ten seconds. In situations where your hands are unavailable (for example, controlling non-critical equipment while performing surgery, or cooking), a natural-language interface is better than no interface. It's rarely, if ever, the best.

@david_chisnall I'm not so sure. I often express myself in natural language to ask people to do things, and that usually works out pretty well.

So it's possible in principle, it's just not something that computers can do yet. Maybe one day they will.

@jarkman When I ask people to do things in natural language, it often fails miserably (the people do the wrong thing). You must be interacting with very capable people or your natural language is very precise and unambiguous.

@rspfau @jarkman
Or, third option, you and your audience share sufficient context to resolve the ambiguities or at least make the right interpretation easy to infer.

This is a feature that no LLM is ever likely to possess, as that would require its training set to mirror your own experience and training, and also requires the kind of generalized, informed judgement that humans routinely do but LLMs purely suck at. Statistical next-word prediction is no substitute for a mental model of actual meaning.

That LLMs routinely produce utterly confident, wrong results is one of their core dangers. Humans at least know (mostly) to say, "I'm really not sure about this," before speculating.

@n1xnx @rspfau Sure, LLMs are terrible at many things right now. Maybe they'll never get better, maybe future machines will come to learn the world more richly and deeply.
@jarkman @rspfau
I'm sure they *will* get better, but absent some quantum leap in computational and storage capabilities, and some truly horrendous amounts of energy input, I don't think they can ever become good enough to be trustworthy. (Just enough to be a real-world example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.")