muldvarp

10 ms·

151.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Hallucination has significantly decreased in the last two years. I'm not saying that LLMs will positively replace all programmers next year, I'm saying that there is a lot of uncertainty and that I don't want that uncertainty
152.
by muldvarp 1y ago
I as a human being can of course not be replaced by a next token predictor. But I as a chess player can easily be replaced by a chess engine and I as a programmer might soon be replaceable by a next token predictor. The only reason programm
153.
by muldvarp 1y ago
LLMs are actually pretty good at reasoning. They don't need to be perfect, humans aren't either.
154.
by muldvarp 1y ago
The answers are even kind of contradictory. If the answer to "will we ever need software engineers again in the future?" is "we don't know" then the answer to "should I spend time and money to enter software en
155.
by muldvarp 1y ago
I do think software engineering is more exposed than many other jobs for multiple reasons: There is an unimaginable amount of freely accessible training data out there. There aren't for example many transcribed therapy sessions out the
156.
by muldvarp 1y ago
I think I haven't made my point clear enough: Chess was once thought to require general intelligence. Then computing power became cheap enough that using raw compute made computers better than humans. Computers didn't play chess i
157.
by muldvarp 1y ago
And if you get that "sometimes" down to "rarely" and then "very rarely" you can replace a lot of expensive and inflexible humans with cheap and infinitely flexible computers. That's pretty much what we&#x2
158.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Yes, that's my point. AI doesn't need to be general to be useful. LLMs might replace software engineers without ever being "general intelligence".
159.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Unions can only prevent automation up to a point. Really the only thing that could have reasonably prevented this would have been for programmers to not produce as much freely accessible training data (formerly known as "open source so
160.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Intelligence doesn't matter. To quote "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies": > There is an important sense, however, in which chess-playing AI turned out to be a lesser triumph than many imagined it would be. It
161.
by muldvarp 1y ago
> These models are extremely unreliable when unsupervised. > It doesn't feel like that will change fundamentally with just incrementally better training. I could list several things that I thought wouldn't get better with mo
162.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Same thing for doctors. Turns out radiologists are fine, it's software engineers that should be scared.
163.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Brutal that software engineering went from one of the least automatable jobs to a job that is universally agreed to be "most exposed to automation". Was good while it lasted though.
164.
by muldvarp 1y ago
> I just want compilers to treat UB the same as unspecified behavior, which cannot be assumed away. Unspecified behavior is defined as the "use of an unspecified value, or other behavior where this International Standard provides tw
165.
by muldvarp 1y ago
I don't see any surprised compiler authors in that thread. The reporter immediately suggests the correct underlying reason for the bug and another compiler author even says that they wondered how long it would take for someone to notic
166.
by muldvarp 1y ago
> It's even seeing potential revivals in Germany. No, it isn't. The CSU ran with nuclear revival as one of their campaign promises and there seems to be some support for it among the population but it's nowhere to be found
167.
by muldvarp 1y ago
> We have 2 billion new watts of nuclear on the grid in the last few years Because two nuclear reactors came online in the last two years (after massive delays and cost overruns). In the last 29 years the US built three new nuclear react
168.
by muldvarp 1y ago
Yes and those two reactors make up two thirds of all new nuclear reactors in the US in the last 29 years. There is no nuclear renaissance in the US and it really doesn't look like there will be one in the (near) future. Especially give
169.
by muldvarp 1y ago
The entire point of the article is that renewables are growing and that growth is entirely due to solar and wind.
170.
by muldvarp 2y ago
Compilers already warn when they detect _unconditional_ undefined behavior. They just don't warn on _conditional_ undefined behavior because doing so would introduce far too many warnings. Exploiting undefined behavior for optimization
171.
by muldvarp 2y ago
> doing something sane like reporting it or disallowing it This is only possible if you check for it at runtime and that's a tradeoff most C programmers don't like.
172.
by muldvarp 2y ago
Shouldn't your blog post then condemn the C community at large for failing to use a more "reasonable" C compiler instead of complaining about compiler authors that "despite holding the minority world view, [...] have man
173.
by muldvarp 2y ago
To quote your article: > The question is: should compiler authors be able to do whatever they want? I argue that they should not. My question is: I see so many C programmers bemoaning the fact that modern compilers exploit undefined beha
174.
by muldvarp 2y ago
> spares you the trouble of navigating much of the zoo that is git cli design Yeah. I understand the inner workings of git and am perfectly capable of using git on the command line but the git cli is just so horribly designed. I regularl
175.
by muldvarp 2y ago
> the cost is a huge blocker. It is. Formal verification is and will be (for a very long time) a thing you only do for airplanes and nuclear reactors.
176.
by muldvarp 2y ago
> In other words, how do we know that what we proof is still valid for the original code? We don't. We will always have to trust _something_ (the hardware, the compiler, the specification, Coq's trusted kernel, ...). Formal ver
177.
by muldvarp 2y ago
The media is picking up any Boeing related incident and it is ignoring other incidents. Most of the incidents I read about in the last weeks had nothing at all to do with Boeing as a company.
178.
by muldvarp 2y ago
Not all vaccines are (purely) prophylactic. This is what we would call a therapeutic vaccine.
179.
by muldvarp 3y ago
Then why not write a blog post "We can parse C" instead of "Xr0 makes C safe (it doesn't actually and we are unable or unwilling to go into details and also please don't ask us about Frama-C)"?
180.
by muldvarp 3y ago
Yes, the subset of C it currently supports is so small I'm really puzzled what you think this prototype is proving. That you can parse C?

More ›