alt Hacker NewsDoesn't have to be "a clear definition", a rough defition within some quite lax boundaries is fine.
You can just say to Claude for example "Make me an app that accepts daily weight measurements and plots them in a graph" and it will make one. Tell it to use tha framework or this pattern, and it will do so too. Ask for more features as you go, in similar vague language. At some point your project is done.
Even before AI the vast majority of software is not written with any "clear definition" to begin with, there's some rought architecture and idea, and people code as they go, and often have to clarify or rebuilt things to get them as they want, or discover they want something slightly different or the initial design had some issues and needs changing.
Replies
You do need a clear definition of what this “LLM as a high level language” is supposed to be. Otherwise it’s all just wishful thinking.
“It’s good enough” so it generates apps that could otherwise be boilerplate. OK, I guess? But that’s not what OP was talking about in their post.
This is the most handwaving per paragraph I've ever seen.
I think a fair summarization of your point is "LLM generated programs work well enough often enough to not need more constraints or validation than natural language", whatever that means.
If you take that as a true thing then sure why would you go deeper (eg, I never look at the compiled bytecode my high level languages produce for this exact reason - I'm extremely confident that translation is right to the point of not thinking about it anymore).
Most people who have built, maintained, and debugged software aren't ready to accept the premise that all of this is just handled well by LLMs at this point. Many many folks have lots of first hand experience watching it not be true, even when people are confidently claiming otherwise.
I think if you want to be convincing in this thread you need to go back one step and explain why the LLM code is "good enough" and how you determined that. Otherwise it's just two sides talking totally past each other.