Brummel
fdff6cd613
Follows up the SMA controls with the sharper question: does AILang cost a frontier model MORE than a language it knows from training (Rust)? Claude passing SMA is binary and cannot tell "effortless" from "barely". Measured with pass@1 over 6 samples of the same task in AILang (two-example few-shot) vs Rust, single-shot, fresh clueless agents, no tools, oracled afterward. Task 1 (Expr-evaluator — ADT + match + recursion, all in the few-shot): AILang 6/6 = Rust 6/6, no gap; all six AILang answers byte-identical. When every construct is in the few-shot, AILang is not harder. Task 2 (count-greater-than — needs a comparison, OUTSIDE the few-shot): AILang 0/6 vs Rust 6/6. But the logic was correct in all six; they fell on a guessed name (`>`, which AILang lacks). A vocabulary gap, not a reasoning gap — and the single-shot setup is unfair: in Rust Claude implicitly has its training plus the obvious ability to scan an unknown crate, which AILang was denied. The fair test (scan + compiler-loop, how Claude actually works): one Claude context, count-greater-than, given the prelude as a scanned library, then iterated on raw compiler output. Converges in two feedback rounds — gt+match-on-Bool -> (case true ..) -> match (compare h N) .. GT -> green. Decisive contrast: no-scan + terse errors -> Claude DIVERGES (invents gtPos, sub, non-existent pat-var); scan + diagnostic errors -> Claude CONVERGES. Same model; the difference is the discovery affordances, not the model. The 0/6 was the artefact of an unfair test, not an intrinsic AILang weakness — with the scan-plus-iterate workflow, the "language is harder" gap dissolves. Two genuine AILang defects the thread exposed, filed as issues: - #69: `ail builtins` is an incomplete API scan — it lists no comparison operator; gt/lt/le/ge/compare live in the prelude, which builtins does not surface. A model scanning the obvious discovery tool never finds half the comparison stdlib. - #70: `match` on Bool passes `ail check` but codegen rejects it (`match on non-ADT scrutinee (i1); MVP supports only ADTs`); with no `if`, branching on a Bool has no working surface — one must route through compare->Ordering. A check/codegen inconsistency under an "internal:" prefix. Answer, decomposed: cognitively AILang is not harder (the algorithm transfers); vocabulary-without-scan is harder but that is any unfamiliar language; with scan + iteration Claude drives AILang like a foreign crate; where it genuinely is harder is the two fixable tooling/compiler defects above. Caveat: n=6, two small tasks, one model, low sampling variance — exploratory, not a study. Evidence under experiments/2026-05-12-cross-model-authoring/familiar-vs-unfamiliar/.
17 lines
694 B
Plaintext
17 lines
694 B
Plaintext
(module m
|
|
(data Expr (ctor Lit (con Int)) (ctor Add (con Expr) (con Expr)) (ctor Mul (con Expr) (con Expr)))
|
|
(fn eval
|
|
(type (fn-type (params (own (con Expr))) (ret (own (con Int)))))
|
|
(params e)
|
|
(body
|
|
(match e
|
|
(case (pat-ctor Lit n) n)
|
|
(case (pat-ctor Add a b) (app + (app eval a) (app eval b)))
|
|
(case (pat-ctor Mul a b) (app * (app eval a) (app eval b))))))
|
|
(fn main
|
|
(type (fn-type (params) (ret (own (con Unit))) (effects IO)))
|
|
(params)
|
|
(body
|
|
(let e (term-ctor Expr Mul (term-ctor Expr Add (term-ctor Expr Lit 2) (term-ctor Expr Lit 3)) (term-ctor Expr Lit 4))
|
|
(seq (app print (app eval e)) (do io/print_str "\n"))))))
|