4 ms·

> It's not fair to compare them like this! As someone who leans pro in this debate, I don't think I would make that statement. I would say the results are exac

by nvrmnd 8mo ago

> It's not fair to compare them like this! As someone who leans pro in this debate, I don't think I would make that statement. I would say the results are exactly as we expect. Also, a highly verifiable task like this is well suited to LLMs, and I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc.

dashzebra 8mo ago
The same two years as in "full self driving available in 2 years"? Right.
- tyre 8mo ago
  These are different technologies with different rates of demonstrated growth. They have very little to do with each other.
  - dashzebra 8mo ago
    Well let's check again in two years then.
phorkyas82 8mo ago
Don't forget that gcc is in the training set. That's what always puts me off: when AI replaces artists, SO and FOSS projects, it can only feed into itself and deteriorate..
- FeepingCreature 8mo ago
  it can feed into itself and improve. the idea that self-training necessarily causes deterioration is fanfic. remember that they spend massive amounts of compute on rl.
- kuboble 8mo ago
  The AlphaZero approach shows otherwise, as long as there is an automated way to generate new test cases and evaluate the outcomes. We can't do it for all domains, but I believe we can for efficient code. today's models could be probably already good enough to compose tasks, and evaluate the results.
flexagoon 8mo ago
> I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc. Building a "better compiler than gcc" is a matter of cutting-age scientific research, not of being able to write good code
- xigoi 8mo ago
  Given that GCC is in the training data, it should not take much research to create an equally good compiler.
  - flexagoon 8mo ago
    If reproducing data from the training set counts, then creating an equally good compiler is a matter of running `git clone` :D
player1234 8mo ago
[dead]
fourthark 8mo ago
But only if there is a competent compiler engineer running the AI, reviewing specs, and providing decent design goals. Yes it will be far easier than if they did it without AI, but should we really call it “produced by AI” at that point?
- nvrmnd 8mo ago
  Yes, we will certainly go that way, probably code already added to gcc has been developed through collaborative AI tools. Agree we don't call that "produced by AI". I think compilers though are a rare case where large scale automated verification is possible. My guess is that starting from gcc, and all existing documentation on compilers, etc. and putting ridiculous amounts of compute into this problem will yield a compiler that significantly improves benchmarks.
VMG 8mo ago
> and I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc and the "anti" crowd will point to some exotic architecture where it is worse
- EraYaN 8mo ago
  No, they will point out that the way to make GCC better is not really in the code itself. It's in scientific paper writing and new approaches. Implementation is really not the most work.

by nvrmnd 8mo ago

dashzebra 8mo ago

The same two years as in "full self driving available in 2 years"? Right.

tyre 8mo ago
These are different technologies with different rates of demonstrated growth. They have very little to do with each other.
- dashzebra 8mo ago
  Well let's check again in two years then.

phorkyas82 8mo ago

Don't forget that gcc is in the training set. That's what always puts me off: when AI replaces artists, SO and FOSS projects, it can only feed into itself and deteriorate..

FeepingCreature 8mo ago
it can feed into itself and improve. the idea that self-training necessarily causes deterioration is fanfic. remember that they spend massive amounts of compute on rl.
kuboble 8mo ago
The AlphaZero approach shows otherwise, as long as there is an automated way to generate new test cases and evaluate the outcomes. We can't do it for all domains, but I believe we can for efficient code. today's models could be probably already good enough to compose tasks, and evaluate the results.

flexagoon 8mo ago

> I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc. Building a "better compiler than gcc" is a matter of cutting-age scientific research, not of being able to write good code

xigoi 8mo ago
Given that GCC is in the training data, it should not take much research to create an equally good compiler.
- flexagoon 8mo ago
  If reproducing data from the training set counts, then creating an equally good compiler is a matter of running `git clone` :D

player1234 8mo ago

[dead]

fourthark 8mo ago

But only if there is a competent compiler engineer running the AI, reviewing specs, and providing decent design goals. Yes it will be far easier than if they did it without AI, but should we really call it “produced by AI” at that point?

nvrmnd 8mo ago
Yes, we will certainly go that way, probably code already added to gcc has been developed through collaborative AI tools. Agree we don't call that "produced by AI". I think compilers though are a rare case where large scale automated verification is possible. My guess is that starting from gcc, and all existing documentation on compilers, etc. and putting ridiculous amounts of compute into this problem will yield a compiler that significantly improves benchmarks.

VMG 8mo ago

> and I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc and the "anti" crowd will point to some exotic architecture where it is worse

EraYaN 8mo ago
No, they will point out that the way to make GCC better is not really in the code itself. It's in scientific paper writing and new approaches. Implementation is really not the most work.