2 ms·

I believe they can make ANY software project the largest it can be! This solution should look for more problems.

marginalia_nu 2mo ago
Yeah came here to say the same thing. The Hard Problem of software engineering isn't making a complex monstrosity with millions of lines of code and endless feature creep, but not doing that. This was as true 20 years as it is today.
- AlotOfReading 2mo ago
  I apologize for such a big program — I didn't have enough tokens to write a small one. - my coworkers
linsomniac 2mo ago
You say that, but I asked Codex to build a Asteroids (but FPS) as a web app, and it wrote it in under 4K LOC, and a Tempest implementation in 6.5K LOC. Those seem like really reasonable line counts to me. I also built a caching proxy server for apt packages, that's a bigger project, and that is 30.5K lines of golang, which doesn't seem bad compared to apt-cacher-ng which is 19.3K of C++ (my project does significantly more).
- thisisauserid 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - linsomniac 2mo ago
    I'm going to take it that you were being sarcastic. However, in the case of the apt cacher, the DDoS of Ubuntu infrastructure showed that the existing apt cachers left a *LOT* of room for improvement, not to mention that apt-cacher-ng has regularly (over the last 13 years of use) gotten wedged and needed intervention. This cacher understands Deb package repo structure, and when it finds new meta-data it grabs and checks the meta-data, downloads new version of any package you regularly download (configurable), and then makes a snapshot of that, which it then promotes for cache users to see. I can shut down my Internet connection and then install a fresh Ubuntu from ISO, then "apt update; apt dist-upgrade" successfully via the cache. If you are saying that AI isn't solving novel problems, you are waaaaaay off. But you're also missing the point: This branch of the conversation is about AI tools writing wildly inflated code. Which I proposed a few data-points refuting.
anothermathbozo 2mo ago
The benchmark does not reward producing more code.

Yeah came here to say the same thing. The Hard Problem of software engineering isn't making a complex monstrosity with millions of lines of code and endless feature creep, but not doing that. This was as true 20 years as it is today.

AlotOfReading 2mo ago
I apologize for such a big program — I didn't have enough tokens to write a small one. - my coworkers

linsomniac 2mo ago

You say that, but I asked Codex to build a Asteroids (but FPS) as a web app, and it wrote it in under 4K LOC, and a Tempest implementation in 6.5K LOC. Those seem like really reasonable line counts to me. I also built a caching proxy server for apt packages, that's a bigger project, and that is 30.5K lines of golang, which doesn't seem bad compared to apt-cacher-ng which is 19.3K of C++ (my project does significantly more).

thisisauserid 2mo ago
[flagged]
- linsomniac 2mo ago
  I'm going to take it that you were being sarcastic. However, in the case of the apt cacher, the DDoS of Ubuntu infrastructure showed that the existing apt cachers left a *LOT* of room for improvement, not to mention that apt-cacher-ng has regularly (over the last 13 years of use) gotten wedged and needed intervention. This cacher understands Deb package repo structure, and when it finds new meta-data it grabs and checks the meta-data, downloads new version of any package you regularly download (configurable), and then makes a snapshot of that, which it then promotes for cache users to see. I can shut down my Internet connection and then install a fresh Ubuntu from ISO, then "apt update; apt dist-upgrade" successfully via the cache. If you are saying that AI isn't solving novel problems, you are waaaaaay off. But you're also missing the point: This branch of the conversation is about AI tools writing wildly inflated code. Which I proposed a few data-points refuting.

anothermathbozo 2mo ago

The benchmark does not reward producing more code.