gpm

4 ms·

1.
by gpm 5d ago
> including the site using editors' and readers' computers to run a denial-of-service attack This seems like sufficient justification not only to censor it at a state level, but to criminally prosecute any individual who visits
2.
by gpm 11d ago
Ehh... Technically yes but when you don't own the copyright on the tests you need to be very careful against creating derivative works, and you need to preserve both licenses in the distributed source.
3.
by gpm 11d ago
Guaranteeing an optimization that otherwise only might run is a change in semantics. The attribute doesn't allow (in any sensible language) the code to simply not compile because the optimizer doesn't feel like it today (or you co
4.
by gpm 11d ago
Uh, yes, if you guarantee the semantics only when the code explicitly opts in and not by default then semantics will not subtly change, that is the point of my comment
5.
by gpm 12d ago
It really does matter. I don't know enough about this specific case, but multiple order of magnitude differences in CVE numbers are frequently explained by different policies towards finding and assigning CVEs in many many cases. Absen
6.
by gpm 12d ago
Scala, ocaml, racket, clojure, zig. For recursion only kotlin. (For most of these only with syntax specifying it)
7.
by gpm 12d ago
> implicitly creating new stacks I'd argue that it's explicit - that's what a function call does and you don't have implicit function calls in rust. > Seems the latter is a kind of compiler-level optimization, of w
8.
by gpm 12d ago
For what it's worth there's reasonably active [1] work on implementing opt-in guaranteed tail calls - but it's not particularly fast going. LLVM (the backend rust uses) needs better support for musttail (e.g. some architectur
9.
by gpm 12d ago
This isn't a port - it's a re-implementation without any use of the original source. That's also not all that's happening. It's also making improvements like better internalization support, better error messages, an
10.
by gpm 12d ago
Nah, people should (and do) fix small issues as well as big issues. Lying about the scale of issues and calling them "big" when they aren't just leads to no ability to prioritize or evaluate. Incidentally someone submitted a
11.
by gpm 13d ago
> from 8 to 16 MB Yes
12.
by gpm 16d ago
Fascinating document - the headline (can't ready the article) talking about a bioweapon (i.e. a weird obsession of anthropic's) really buries the interesting part.
13.
by gpm 16d ago
> That seems completely at odds with "everyone will be replaced by AI" You yourself give an example of how it might not be, UBI. The assumption doesn't have to be likely here. It can be the case that you think society is p
14.
by gpm 16d ago
By making decisions under the assumption that society will continue. Even under the reduction to absurdity of everyone 's jobs being replaced in a year, there's still some system of allocating resources and they would still like
15.
by gpm 16d ago
99.5% of the time you can understand it (percentage varies with rating).
16.
by gpm 16d ago
How is the WPEngine case going anyways? Glancing at the docket [1] in an attempt to answer this myself... looks like the trial is scheduled for a bit over a year from now [2].. A ton of fighting over discovery... a motion asking for fairly
17.
by gpm 17d ago
Yeah, it's unfortunate when anyone goes off the deep end.
18.
by gpm 17d ago
Airplanes have pretty bounded damage. Generally you kill at most a few hundred people. Even weaponized a few thousand. This is a risk profile that allows risk taking with near misses and waiting until something goes wrong to fix it (though
19.
by gpm 17d ago
Yes? If we look at the math problems they're solving their just now reaching the human frontier... they weren't doing that before. And your comparison point is model released 2.5 months ago... saying for some use case you didn&#x2
20.
by gpm 17d ago
Mathematicians provide two complementary services bundled together. 1. Proving theorems - what AI can apparently replicate faster and better. 2. Creating definitions and new theorems from those definitions to prove, selecting which of the p
21.
by gpm 17d ago
> Unless [...] mathematicians are effectively useless? It's always been a bit bizarre that this isn't the case. Mathematicians are almost always working on problems that there is no good reason to expect to have utility in th
22.
by gpm 17d ago
I've actually spent time doing math and literally everyone I know who knows math learnt it by reproving things that people proved before them. I don't see why AI proving things makes this form of learning any more economically inf
23.
by gpm 17d ago
Or actually doing what they did here where it changes it to a enum Value { SimpleFloat(64bit value), ComplexNan(Heap pointer) Ptr(*const T) } You lose out on performance if you use the bit patterns in
24.
by gpm 17d ago
See also his previous thread from before the result was published (and before he knew it was coming [1]) on how a to this problem seemed increasingly likely to be solved by AI in a way that caused us to miss the insights that would traditio
25.
by gpm 17d ago
What I'd like to enable this use of LLMs more recklessly is a compiler with formal methods that lets me guarantee equivalence between the opaque optimized code and something actually understandable.
26.
by gpm 17d ago
I'd actually point at the other half of the title than the existing comment when being pedantic "Replacing [...] with a 64-Bit Word" isn't quite right, it was replaced with a manually packed 64-Bit Word and the occasion
27.
by gpm 18d ago
Eh... OpenAI spent significantly more than $1 million solving this...
28.
by gpm 18d ago
I wouldn't expect poking at millennium problems to be that rare in ChatGPT. They were uniquely successful - but it's probably not easy to check de-identified data for the presence of any of their work on the problem because it w
29.
by gpm 18d ago
I've seen it on PMC. Strangely fixed by switching to a different firefox container ("container" in this context: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain... )
30.
by gpm 19d ago
Oh, oops, you're right. Sorry.

More ›