Designing programming languages beyond AI comprehension
What characteristics should a programming language have in order to make automated analysis, replication, and learning by artificial intelligence systems difficult? Any idea?
13 comments
Template metaprogramming, move semantics, const correctness, multiple/virtual inheritance, implicit conversions, many ways to initialize variables, argument-dependent lookup, static variables/methods, SFINAE...add all of that and you'll surely make a programming language beyond all comprehension.
My "naive" idea was to create something like a closed, private programming system where developers write code in an magic IDE on isolated private VMs, the compiler is distributed and secured on a private blockchain (very expensive I guess), and only compiled TypeScript is exposed publicly keeping the language’s inner workings completely hidden...
A private blockchain is an oxymoron. The point of a blockchain (as it's understood by the crypto world, at least) is for it to be publically readable by anyone.
A private blockchain is just a database.
A private blockchain is just a database.
The problem with your idea is that when designing a programming language you are creating something meant to be replicable. If you obscure part of the language within a black box, you nullify the entire purpose of creating it in the first place. Is your goal to create an unanalyzable-by-AI programming language or is it information security?
… what is the goal here? What’s the reason you want a programming language that LLMs can’t learn?
[deleted]
just mutate the syntax and features based on arbitrary but readable factors that llms easily trip up on and are highly contextualized.
Change capitalization of keywords based on filename length. If for odd length IF for even. iF for prime numbers.
variables named in English are strongly typed, variables in Spanish are weakly typed.
change symbols based on line absolute number. && on even lines AND on odd.
line terminators differ based on the number of consonants in the method name
every 5th consecutive line should begin with the symbol for comments unless there's a real comment more than 10 lines above but less than 23.
closing brackets are left brackets when the file-size is over 3k
switch assignment evaluation left vs right based on folder depth.
all conditions that an IDE could handle in a rote, calculated way real-time but would probably make the training data nonsensical. An LLM might produce the code based on language features but likely will never get the syntax right making any LLM output largely useless.
Change capitalization of keywords based on filename length. If for odd length IF for even. iF for prime numbers.
variables named in English are strongly typed, variables in Spanish are weakly typed.
change symbols based on line absolute number. && on even lines AND on odd.
line terminators differ based on the number of consonants in the method name
every 5th consecutive line should begin with the symbol for comments unless there's a real comment more than 10 lines above but less than 23.
closing brackets are left brackets when the file-size is over 3k
switch assignment evaluation left vs right based on folder depth.
all conditions that an IDE could handle in a rote, calculated way real-time but would probably make the training data nonsensical. An LLM might produce the code based on language features but likely will never get the syntax right making any LLM output largely useless.
"change symbols based on line absolute number. && on even lines AND on odd."
I'd make that so it's on even significant lines of code.
So you can't just leave a blank line to leave the rest of the file syntactically correct.
And of course enforce no braces on single line bodies, and enforce the first brace to be on the next line as the if/for/whatever statement (so that the parity of the SLOC number changes if a single statement body turns into a two statement body)
I'd make that so it's on even significant lines of code.
So you can't just leave a blank line to leave the rest of the file syntactically correct.
And of course enforce no braces on single line bodies, and enforce the first brace to be on the next line as the if/for/whatever statement (so that the parity of the SLOC number changes if a single statement body turns into a two statement body)
You can use many obfuscation techniques and sleight of hand tricks (like those stated below) to make it very hard to superficially analyze. If you over obfuscate, you run the risk of making it unintelligible to humans. The problem becomes that conventional programming languages follow a 'predictable' structure and are created so that they can be replicated by other humans.
If that pattern is figured out, im sure it can be used to train an LLM to 'comprehend' that programming language. Think of it like designing a cipher or a puzzle; you can create a very complex cipher that is understood only by you or those you choose to share it with. But if the 'trick' is revealed, then the entire cipher is broken.
If that pattern is figured out, im sure it can be used to train an LLM to 'comprehend' that programming language. Think of it like designing a cipher or a puzzle; you can create a very complex cipher that is understood only by you or those you choose to share it with. But if the 'trick' is revealed, then the entire cipher is broken.
I think everything that makes it less-readable for humans are actually not a big issue for LLM as long as you have a specification. Maybe the most human-readable language has the smallest gap?
Programming language is just a set of rules. Rules are trivial to learn by any LLM. So this entire questions is pointless.
Exactly what’s the purpose?