3 ms·
Depends what you mean by 'code', of course. There's some pretty high-level libraries doing heavy-lifting in those 10 thousands of lines. And if also count the t
by tpoacher 2y ago
Depends what you mean by 'code', of course. There's some pretty high-level libraries doing heavy-lifting in those 10 thousands of lines. And if also count the training data and the billions of encoded parameters as "code", that is required to make this work, then that's a lot of "lines".
At the other extreme, if you're happy to exclude 'libraries' then I could wrap these tens of thousands of lines to a bashscript, and claim I have written an artificial general intelligence in only 1 line.
- xiphias2 2y agoEverybody who has worked on a large/huge code base knows that most of it is there for historical reasons: it's always safer to add a new feature than to replace something old, as most of the time people don't know if that old code is useful or not. BTW tinygrad shows that tens of thousands of lines are enough, it's skipping even most of the AMD kernel drivers and talks to the hardware directly.
- sumtechguy 2y agoI have seen people re-write large chunks of functionality not knowing it was already there in a form they didnt know about. Have done it myself a few times. Write largish blob of code. Replace it with one system call that does the same thing. Also most things are simple. It is the data and libraries and applications from those simple things that are interesting. Take for example C++. The actual language is a few dozen keywords. But the libraries and things built using those small things is quite large. Also most drivers are written so that we can re-use the code. But with the right docs you can twiddle the hardware yourself. That was 'the 80s/90s way'. It was not until macos/os2/windows/xlib that we abstracted the hardware. Mostly so we could consistently reuse things.