Comment by janalsncm
10 months ago
There’s an argument that library authors should consider implementing those hallucinated functions, not because it’ll be easier for LLMs but because the hallucination is a statement about what an average user might expect to be there.
I really dislike libraries that have their own bespoke ways of doing things for no especially good reason. Don’t try to be cute. I don’t want to remember your specific API, I want an intuitive API so I spend less time looking up syntax and more time solving the actual problem.
There's also an argument that developers of new software, including libraries, should consider making an earnest attempt to do The Right Thing instead of re-implementing old, flawed designs and APIs for familiarity's sake. We have enough regression to the mean already.
The more LLMs are entrenched and required, the less we're able to do The Right Thing in the future. Time will be frozen, and we'll be stuck with the current mean forever. LLMs are notoriously bad at understanding anything that isn't mappable in some way to pre-existing constructs.
> for no especially good reason
That's a major qualifier.
Polars has their own LLM customised for the docs:
https://docs.pola.rs/api/python/stable/reference/
I would say that this is pretty good approach to combat the previous.