3 ms·
The 3 big ones, Linux, GCC and Git require a human to vouch/explain the work in question. Once the 3 big ones start using LLM to review/accept the work for spe
by javier_e06 2mo ago
The 3 big ones, Linux, GCC and Git require a human to vouch/explain the work in question.
Once the 3 big ones start using LLM to review/accept the work for speed reliability sake, who knows what is going to happen.
- lumost 2mo agoIf you are asking a human to review something, it should have been verified/reviewed by a human first. I have no interest reading someone else’s ai output that has not been verified.
- noir_lord 2mo agoAgreedm Modifying Hitchen's Maxim - "That which can be asserted without thought and be dismissed without thought". Or to put it another way, expecting me to review code you didn't and had an LLM generate is pushing the onus onto me and that's not happening.
- TZubiri 2mo agoMy personal adaptation of Hitchen's Razor for LLM content is that "that which is brought for review with low effort, must be dismissed with as much or less effort". I think there's a category of Denial of Service vulnerabilities that we call 'amplified DoS' attacks, where the asymmetry of effort allows an attacker to generate a disproportional waste of resources, submitting LLM content output that magnifies the volume of the input, I think is a form of such attack, and hiding the fact that it is LLM would be the cherry that adds maliciousness.
- rurban 2mo agoAlready happened. My AI coded C compiler already bypassed gcc in less failures, compiles 10x faster, and with their new policy they'll fall far behind.
- Cthulhu_ 2mo agoA bold claim with no sources to back it up.
- rurban 2mo ago[flagged]
- antoinealb 2mo agoFrom the README of that repo, rcc seems to only compile ~2x as fast as GCC. You claim 10x. Where is the proof ?
- encyclopedism 2mo agoI couldn't find the prompts you used. They are the source code now so would be interesting to view them.
- rurban 2mo agoNo way. No open prompts. But I use omp /collab, so I prompt it from my phone. Constantly
- ethin 2mo agoProve it and that your compiler is fully C compliant and can handle all possible inputs GCC can accept (and optimize as well as GCC), then we'll talk. Only then will your compiler risk leaving GCC behind.
- rurban 2mo agoThe proof is gcc's torture test suite. Have a look
- ethin 2mo agoI did also say optimize as well as. As in: your compiler needs to be genuinely better than GCC to compete with it. Good Windows support is a start, but you have yet to reach architecture equality of what GCC provides (which is fair I suppose) and you shell out to GCC for linking (which is pretty funny given that you claim GCC is being left behind...). Although "being left behind" is so nebulous as to be meaningless. For example does your compiler autovectorize? It doesn't look at a glance like it supports OpenMP or OpenACC either.