I call out false dilemma. OP probably defines "code" as one of the languages precise enough to be suited for steering Turing machines. Thus, "code" is not the opposite of "prompt". They are apples and oranges.
Lawyers can code in English, but it is not to layperson's advantage, is it?
And for example, if you prompt for something to frobnicate biweekly, there is no intelligence today, and there will never be, to extract from it whether you want the Turing machine to act twice a week or one per two weeks. It's a deficiency of language, not of intelligence.
Not at all, unless it contains very thorough reasoning comments (which arguably it should). The code is only an artifact, a lot of which is incidental and flexible. The prompts contain the actual constraints.
The prompt is the code :) The code is like a compiled binary. How long until we put the prompts in `src/` and the code in `bin/`, I wonder...
I call out false dilemma. OP probably defines "code" as one of the languages precise enough to be suited for steering Turing machines. Thus, "code" is not the opposite of "prompt". They are apples and oranges.
Lawyers can code in English, but it is not to layperson's advantage, is it?
And for example, if you prompt for something to frobnicate biweekly, there is no intelligence today, and there will never be, to extract from it whether you want the Turing machine to act twice a week or one per two weeks. It's a deficiency of language, not of intelligence.
Not at all, unless it contains very thorough reasoning comments (which arguably it should). The code is only an artifact, a lot of which is incidental and flexible. The prompts contain the actual constraints.
People are trying to retain value as their value is being evaporated.