4 ms·
You're not wrong. But your same objection was made against compilers. That they are opaque, have differences from one to another, and can introduce bugs, they
by tux1968 8mo ago
You're not wrong. But your same objection was made against compilers. That they are opaque, have differences from one to another, and can introduce bugs, they're not actually deterministic if you upgrade the compiler, etc. They separate the programmer from the code the computer eventually executes.
In any case, clinging to the fact that this technology is different in some ways, continues to ignore the many ways it's exactly the same. People continue to cling to what they know, and find ways to argue against what's new. But the writing is plainly on the wall, regardless of how much we struggle to emotionally separate ourselves from it.
- igravious 8mo agoThey may not be wrong per se but that argument is essentially a strawman argument. If these tools are non-deterministic then how did someone at Anthropic spend the equivalent of $20,000 of Anthropic compute and end up with a C compiler that can compile the Linux kernel (one of the largest bodies of C code out there). There is clearly something that completely missies the point about the but-muh-non-determinism argument. See my direct response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46936586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46936586 You'll notice this objection comes up each time a "OpenClaw changed my life" or conversely "Agentic Coding ain't it fam" article swings by.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- blks 8mo agoTo be frank, the C compilers source code were probably multiply times in its learning material, it just had to translate to Rust. This aside, one success story doesn’t mean much, doesn’t even touch determinism question. Anthropic with every ad like this should have posted all the prompts they used.