3 ms·
You're right. I didn't fully read what the OP was saying, which is genius; and my response was more towards the article.
by handfuloflight 1y ago
You're right. I didn't fully read what the OP was saying, which is genius; and my response was more towards the article.
- Noumenon72 1y agoI didn't get this either so let me try to explain as ChatGPT did to me: Monomorphization means taking a generic function and generating a version specific to the type being used, eg a Rust function fn identity<T>(x: T) -> T { x } can be compiled into one version for i32 and one for String, which is more efficient since the compiler knows the types: fn identity_i32(x: i32) -> i32 { x } fn identity_string(x: String) -> String { x } Semantic monomorphization could mean extracting the parts of the library that are meaningful to generate problem-specific concrete code: instead of importing pandas to do import pandas df = [{"a": 1}, {"a": 2}] total = sum(d["a"] for d in df) The LLM might skip the import entirely and generate only: data = [{"a": 1}, {"a": 2}] total = sum(d["a"] for d in data) If I understood right, the parent found it funny that a comment suggesting we could never use libraries because we can concretize the specific relevant code, would be responded to with a Claude.MD that essentially said "always use libraries instead of concrete relevant code". I missed it because I didn't stop to look up "monomorphization", so I hope this helps anyone else like me get the joke.
- lazide 1y agoNah, I found it hilarious that any LLM would have any clue what would constitute ‘well baked’ in the context, or that any of this was going to end well.
- Noumenon72 1y agoYou can't expect everyone on this forum to share your dismissive attitude and therefore your comment was both low-effort and confusing.
- handfuloflight 1y agoAnd what prevents it from having a clue?
- lazide 1y agolooks at thread and gestures
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]