I think this is kinda cool. It pushes forward our understanding of how to work with LLMs. However, it doesn't appear to be something that can be relied upon idempotently. It seems liable to every flaw people have identified in LLMs so far. If the syntax itself can be hallunicated or misunderstood, then it's no better than highly specific prose. Or rather, no better than any other arbitrary pseudo-code structure I could come up with on-the-spot.

At least it has a specification and beginnings of a testing suite? And I do like any new ways of reducing tokens without losing signal. Tho personally I haven't had many positive experience of having LLMs faithfully follow programming delimiters and punctuation like curlies and whitespace. LLMs like prose itself, as that's the bulk of their corpuses (corpii?), right?

If this can deliver idempotence across various domains, and the LLM isn't "distracted" or "jailbroken" by the interface's innards, then yeh, AWESOME. But it still feels fundamentally awkward and scrappy? .. Like trying to hammer a nail into a wall with frozen butter. It probably works, sometimes. Reliably tho? No. I don't know how happy I'd be to use it in production. I'd rather work to develop precise prompting tailored to my domain + splitting the domain into multiple atomic pieces instead of a monolithic prompt) + implementing appropriate I/O checks and filters.