> it's unfairly reductive as progress in this field is iterative.
is that true though? Progress in natural(!) language processing is very iterative, but coding and code correctness is a very precise thing. Both semantically as well as literally. Code that's a 'little bit' wrong technically does not compile, and code that's a 'little bit' wrong semantically might produce catastrophic results.
Engineering doesn't become a natural language problem just because you throw a natural language model at it.
Natural language syntax is precise too. It's not like it's personal idiosyncratic preference. People will mostly agree whether something is syntactically correct or incorrect.
is that true though? Progress in natural(!) language processing is very iterative, but coding and code correctness is a very precise thing. Both semantically as well as literally. Code that's a 'little bit' wrong technically does not compile, and code that's a 'little bit' wrong semantically might produce catastrophic results.
Engineering doesn't become a natural language problem just because you throw a natural language model at it.