3 ms·

I had an interesting experience recently where I ran Opus 4.6 against a problem that o4-mini had previously convinced me wasn't tractable... and Opus 4.6 found

by simonw 9mo ago

I had an interesting experience recently where I ran Opus 4.6 against a problem that o4-mini had previously convinced me wasn't tractable... and Opus 4.6 found me a great solution. https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-chronicle/issues/20 https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-chronicle/issues/20 This inspired me to point the latest models at a bunch of my older projects, resulting in a flurry of fixes and unblocks.

petesergeant 9mo ago
I continue to get great value out of having claude and codex bound together in a loop: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/moarcode https://github.com/pjlsergeant/moarcode
- apitman 9mo ago
  They are one, the ring and the dark lord
- handfuloflight 9mo ago
  And there was many a chuckle at the Geminicide
jauntywundrkind 9mo ago
From the project description here for your sqlite-chronicle project: > Use triggers to track when rows in a SQLite table were updated or deleted Just a note in case its interesting to anyone, sqlite compatible Turso database has CDC, a changes table! https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-change-data-capture-in-turso-sqlite-rewrite https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-change-data-capture-in-t...
small_model 9mo ago
I have a codebase (personal project) and every time there is a new Claude Opus model I get it to do a full code review. Never had any breakages in last couple of model updates. Worried one day it just generates a binary and deletes all the code.
- TZubiri 9mo ago
  No version control?
  - small_model 9mo ago
    I was being facetious, I mean one day models might skip the middle man of code and compilation and take your specs and produce an ultra efficent binary.
    - mikestorrent 9mo ago
      Musk was saying that recently but I don't see it being efficient or worthwhile to do this. I could be proven brutally wrong, but code is language; executables aren't. There's also no real reason to bother with this when we have quick-compiling languages. More realistically, I could see particular languages and frameworks proving out to be more well-designed and apt for AI code creation; for instance, I was always too lazy to use a strongly-typed language, preferring Ruby for the joy of writing in it (obsessing about types is for a particular kind of nerd that I've never wanted to be). But now with AI, everything's better with strong types in the loop, since reasoning about everything is arguably easier and the compiler provides stronger guarantees about what's happening. Similarly, we could see other linguistic constructs come to the forefront because of what they allow when the cost of implementation drops to zero.
      - TZubiri 9mo ago
        You can map tokens to CPU instructions and train a model on that, that's what they do for input images I think. I think the main limitation on the current models is not that cpu instructions aren't cpu instructions (even though they can be with .asm), it's that they are causal, the cpu would need to generate a binary entirely from start to finish sequentially. If we learned something over the last 50 years of programming is that that's hard and that's why we invented programming languages? Why would it be simpler to just generate the machine code, sure maybe an LLM to application can exist, but my money is in that there will be a whole toolchain in the middle, and it will probably be the same old toolchain that we are using currently, an OS, probably Linux. Isn't it more common that stuff builds on the existing infra instead of a super duper revolution that doesn't use the previous tech stack? It's much easier to add onto rather than start from scratch.
poszlem 9mo ago
This may seem obvious, but many people overlook it. The effect is especially clear when using an AI music model. For example, in Suno AI you can remaster an older AI generated track with a newer model. I do this with all my songs whenever a new model is released. It makes it super easy to see the improvements that were made to the models over time.

by simonw 9mo ago

petesergeant 9mo ago

I continue to get great value out of having claude and codex bound together in a loop: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/moarcode https://github.com/pjlsergeant/moarcode

apitman 9mo ago
They are one, the ring and the dark lord
handfuloflight 9mo ago
And there was many a chuckle at the Geminicide

jauntywundrkind 9mo ago

From the project description here for your sqlite-chronicle project: > Use triggers to track when rows in a SQLite table were updated or deleted Just a note in case its interesting to anyone, sqlite compatible Turso database has CDC, a changes table! https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-change-data-capture-in-turso-sqlite-rewrite https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-change-data-capture-in-t...

small_model 9mo ago

I have a codebase (personal project) and every time there is a new Claude Opus model I get it to do a full code review. Never had any breakages in last couple of model updates. Worried one day it just generates a binary and deletes all the code.

TZubiri 9mo ago
No version control?
- small_model 9mo ago
  I was being facetious, I mean one day models might skip the middle man of code and compilation and take your specs and produce an ultra efficent binary.
  - mikestorrent 9mo ago
    Musk was saying that recently but I don't see it being efficient or worthwhile to do this. I could be proven brutally wrong, but code is language; executables aren't. There's also no real reason to bother with this when we have quick-compiling languages. More realistically, I could see particular languages and frameworks proving out to be more well-designed and apt for AI code creation; for instance, I was always too lazy to use a strongly-typed language, preferring Ruby for the joy of writing in it (obsessing about types is for a particular kind of nerd that I've never wanted to be). But now with AI, everything's better with strong types in the loop, since reasoning about everything is arguably easier and the compiler provides stronger guarantees about what's happening. Similarly, we could see other linguistic constructs come to the forefront because of what they allow when the cost of implementation drops to zero.
    - TZubiri 9mo ago
      You can map tokens to CPU instructions and train a model on that, that's what they do for input images I think. I think the main limitation on the current models is not that cpu instructions aren't cpu instructions (even though they can be with .asm), it's that they are causal, the cpu would need to generate a binary entirely from start to finish sequentially. If we learned something over the last 50 years of programming is that that's hard and that's why we invented programming languages? Why would it be simpler to just generate the machine code, sure maybe an LLM to application can exist, but my money is in that there will be a whole toolchain in the middle, and it will probably be the same old toolchain that we are using currently, an OS, probably Linux. Isn't it more common that stuff builds on the existing infra instead of a super duper revolution that doesn't use the previous tech stack? It's much easier to add onto rather than start from scratch.

poszlem 9mo ago

This may seem obvious, but many people overlook it. The effect is especially clear when using an AI music model. For example, in Suno AI you can remaster an older AI generated track with a newer model. I do this with all my songs whenever a new model is released. It makes it super easy to see the improvements that were made to the models over time.