I built a programming language that LLMs can't use

I built a programming language that LLMs can't use(blog.picheta.me)

7 points by dom96 17 hours ago | 4 comments

prologic 16 hours ago |

May I ask what the motivation behind KilllSwitch is? Out of curiosity, I decided to test your claims and asked Claude to build a program in Go and Claude Skill that is able to decompile (from) and compile (to) KS programs along with a Claude Skill that doesn't trip it up. It all works™ -- All your example programs.

So, whilst I _think_ you've built a very clever interpreter, I don't think you can get around the fact that someone (like me) could just build around the noise you've created anyway.

Right?

dom96 6 hours ago | |

The motivation is to build a language that is ideally impossible for LLMs to read/write/understand, or at the very least as difficult as possible. It's cool that you've given it a try, but if you feed Claude the KillSwitch source code it can feasibly just analyse the Rust interpreter source code and likely get around understanding the language itself.

I'm much more interested in the benchmarks[1] I have built which do show LLMs not being able to gain full ability to understand it. The benchmarks only give the model access to the interpreter binary and the spec, nothing else and no internet access. I'd also be interested in other's ideas of how to make the language even more resistant to LLMs/coding agents.

1 - https://bench.killswitch-lang.org/

prologic 4 hours ago | | |

I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is that your concern over building a language that LLM(s) initially can't read or understand, whilst is very admirable, is futile IMO. Why? Because you're not trying to protect your code from LLM(s) at all, there are humans behind these tools. e.g: me.

I just demonstrated to you that no amount of obfuscation is going to protect your work from an LLM -- Not whilst there's still humans behind the tools driving them.