Jweb_Guru

7 ms·

61.
by Jweb_Guru 10mo ago
The reason people had these assumptions is because people have been trying (unsuccessfully) to find a constructive interpretation of this stuff for a very long time. Even very fundamental results in measure theory like the Heine-Borel theo
62.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
I've done a bunch of theoretical PL work and I find this to be a very surprising result... historically the assumption has been that you need deeply "non-computational" classical axioms to work with the sorts of infinites des
63.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
This is the quality of discourse I expect at this point from anti-Rust folks, yes.
64.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Or maybe consumers do not want to (because it doesn't make economic sense for them, or because they don't want to spend every second of their free time optimizing) spend a significant amount of their time doing this kind of resear
65.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
These are just backdoors as a vulnerability class. It does happen occasionally even in high quality widely used libraries, but it's very rare and usually quite sophisticated (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X
66.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Okay. A lot of the blame for this has been previously placed directly at the feet of stuff like AP programs that claim to teach, e.g., calculus to a bunch of people who aren't ready for it; it becomes a prestige thing or expected for
67.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Nobody is saying "don't teach math to high schoolers." My point is that this whole admissions rant appears to be entirely about admission to "elite" schools no longer being fully determined by SAT scores (or whatev
68.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
I have never met a single person who wanted to learn advanced mathematics who was prevented from doing this by not getting into the college of their choice, and I know a lot of mathematicians. Do you genuinely believe that people who get
69.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
In software, where the consequences for initial failure are extremely minimal, sometimes it does actually work well.
70.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
I'm sure your friends want to secure a future for children, but unfortunately this motive is not mutually exclusive with being evil.
71.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Your best guess is that the true rate is 20x higher than the observed rate? This seems unlikely to me given the number of samples (outside of systematic biases towards certain types of memory safety bugs that probably apply to C++ code too
72.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
> Graydon was ejected out of his own language That's not what happened at all. Graydon voluntarily stepped down because he didn't want to be in the role of BDFL. It's true that he wasn't a huge fan of the "C++-
73.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
The fact that the safe subset of Rust can indeed be made safe, and that unsafe code can be encapsulated like this, have already been formally verified. This is an empirical demonstration that matches these formal results across a large com
74.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Is it a usual thing you do that when you're given data about a literal thousandfold improvement, in a context where there are well-understood theoretical and practical reasons why you might have expected to see such an improvement, you
75.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
It wasn't really possible. We had neither the PL techniques nor the computational power to make something like Rust work at the time. All the answers people are throwing around showing it would have been possible rely on a garbage co
76.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
The actual best response would be to run any "unsupported" codecs in a WASM sandbox. That way you are not throwing away work, Google can stop running fuzzers against random formats from 1995, and you can legitimately say that the
77.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
It feels like maybe people do not realize that Google is not the only company that can run fuzzers against ffmpeg? Attackers are also highly incentivized to do so and they will not do you the courtesy of filing bug reports.
78.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Thanks for engaging thoughtfully! FWIW I actually looked this article up because I was interested in your claim that even experts couldn't perform these tasks, something I hadn't heard before--I'm not actually ignoring wha
79.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
I am pretty much certain that parts of it were LLM-written, yes. This doesn't imply that the entire blog post is LLM-generated. If you're a good Bayesian and object to my use of "100%" feel free to pretend that I said
80.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Human experts can reliably detect some kinds of long-form, AI-generated text using exactly the same sorts of cues I've outlined: https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v1 . You may take issue with the quality of the p
81.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
I would never claim that we can reliably detect all AI generated text. There are many ways to write text with LLM assistance that is indistinguishable from human output. Moreover, models themselves are extremely bad at detecting AI-genera
82.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
> It was absolutely an example of the pattern, just more wordy. Spare me the ad hominem. LLMs simply don't generate the syntactic pattern I used consistently, but they do generate the pattern in the article. I'm not really sur
83.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Again, this is why I don't bother explaining why it's very obvious to us. People like you immediately claim that human writing is like this all the time, which it's not. Suffice it to say that if a large number of people ar
84.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
I can point to individual sentences that were clearly generated by AI (for example, numerous instances of this parallel construction, "No warning. No error. Just different methods that make no sense.", "Not corrupted. Not mis
85.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Parts of it were 100% LLM written. Like it or not, people can recognize LLM-generated text pretty easily, and if they see it they are going to make the assumption that the rest of the article is slop too.
86.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
Parts of it being generated by Claude or ChatGPT (which they very clearly were) does not necessarily mean that the whole article was fabricated.
87.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
GPT-5 thinking is one of the biggest offenders and it's quite incredible to me that you think it doesn't hallucinate. It makes me strongly suspect your own judgment is impaired. Also, what do you mean asking for "reproducib
88.
by Jweb_Guru 11mo ago
This is what really scares me about people using AI. It will confidently hallucinate studies and quotes that have absolutely no basis in reality, and even in your own field you're not going to know whether what it's saying is r
89.
by Jweb_Guru 1y ago
It's okay to acknowledge that you missed something in your literature search. Everyone does. It's not okay to sweep it under the rug or pretend that it's novel after having having the prior work pointed out to you, especial
90.
by Jweb_Guru 1y ago
The justifications for why the pardon is okay are ridiculously flimsy and I assumed that it was because they weren't really trying, but bewilderingly it does actually appear to have convinced some credulous people on Hacker News, so I

More ›