The terseness of Haskell just hides the inherent complexity of the problem. The AI (or human) still needs to uncover that complexity in order to do non-trivial things.

AI makes different types of mistakes to humans. They're harder for us to see because we're not expecting them.

Bespoke designs are often really terrible. Have you ever shopped for a house?

You know immediately when the previous owner had their stupid whims indulged by contractors with dollar-signs in their eyes. The house is ugly, non-functional and is not going to get the sellers price.

The next owner will undo nearly all of the work, and the contractor will cash in on both ends.

As engineers, we like to think we're the contractor in this scenario. But it's actually just an LLM.

Imagine how crippled you would be if you felt compelled to follow every comment thread to its end.

We're just monkeys looking for the good bits among a pile of rotten fruit.

Imagine you walked into a convenience store and the owner was like "Hey you need to take the tour first!"

The advantages to Haskell are theoretically obvious. The downsides are harder to intuit.

The temptation is to model _everything_ as types. The codebase itseld becomes a _business specification_, not an application. Every policy change is a major refactor (some of which are shockingly high-touch thanks to Haskell safety).

The lesson is you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Eventually you become trapped by your types.

Haskell is really impressive and powerful, perhaps especially at this scale. However it brings its own unique problems. The temptation to model business logic as types leads to rigid structures. And the safety these structures bring can blind you to other classes of risk.

You lose the ability to log "why" some effect is happening.

"I'm going to become a vegetarian" vibes.

the whole thing is driven by irrational stock market investers who NEED ai to be the thing that saves the world.

they're betting everything on it.

I think they do it mostly to feel young and edgy.