That's a very fair and critical point. You're right that we can't change the fundamental, probabilistic nature of LLMs themselves.

But that makes me wonder if the goal should be reframed. Instead of trying to eliminate errors, what if we could change their nature?

The interesting hypothesis to explore, then, is whether a language's grammar can be designed to make an LLM's probabilistic errors fail loudly as obvious syntactic errors, rather than failing silently as subtle, hard-to-spot semantic bugs.

For instance, if a language demands extreme explicitness and has no default behaviors, an LLM's failure to generate the required explicit token becomes a simple compile-time error, not a runtime surprise.

So while we can't "fix" the LLM's core, maybe we can design a grammar that acts as a much safer "harness" for its output.