polyglotfacto

7 ms·

31.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
Thanks for the clarification. With the scope of the experiment in mind, I think we can deduce from it that AI is just not able to produce good software unsupervised. It's an important lesson. To make a wider point, let's look at a
32.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
Yes, but that is not what I wrote. I wrote: "useless even as a proof of concept". It doesn't have to be perfect; it just needs to show a clear path forward.
33.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
I understand this is not meant as production level quality, but as a web engineer I was expecting at least a decent POC with some interesting design ideas; not total spaghetti that even gets the spec wrong(despite the good idea of checking
34.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
The fact that it is new is meaningless: the output is useless even as a proof of concept web engine and should be discarded, alongside the agent engineering pattern that produced it.
35.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
> Looks like a success to me. How is spaghetti code that does not implement the spec(web standards in this case) success? You are one of the creators of Django; so let me try to give you an analogy: if someone runs thousands of agents in
36.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
> it's very much intended as a research project If so then the failure of the experiment should be acknowledged. Failure described among others at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46705625 > It's functi
37.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
I'm not sure about what you mean with your first sentence in terms of product. But in general, my guess at an answer(supported by the results of the experiment discussed on this thread), is that: - GenAi left unsupervised cannot write
38.
Study on positive use of AI in academic writing; challenges brain rot narrative(sciencedirect.com)
1 points by polyglotfacto 9mo ago|0 comments
39.
AI Coding: Conversations and Bottlenecks(medium.com)
1 points by polyglotfacto 9mo ago|0 comments
40.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
I've done this in the parallel post, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46705625 (and a couple of other replies in that thread) TLDR; the code is not a valid POC but throw-away level quality that could never supp
41.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
> what matters in the end is what the code does, not what it looks like That is true in a way, although even for agents readability matters. But the code here does not actually do the right thing, and the way it is written also means it
42.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
It's obvious by now that AI can write a whole bunch of code approximating all kinds of things. So there is no reason anymore for this to impress anyone. A well-architected POC built in a week with a clear path to scaling it to a full i
43.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
> there are real complex systems being engineered towards the goal of a browser engine, even if not there yet. In various comments in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624541 I have explained at length why your flee
44.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
So first of all, as per my other comments on this threads and coming from a browser engineer: the autonomous coding agents failed miserably. Whether it is the best case scenario in terms of benchmark, I am not so sure. The Web is indeed sta
45.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
If you paid 5 cents for the code you would have been ripped off; it's throw-away stuff.
46.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
I think the current approach is simply not scalable to a working browser ever. To leverage AI to build a working browser you would imo need the following: - A team of humans with some good ideas on how to improve on existing web engines. -
47.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
As I explained elsewhere in this thread, the results here are more like trying to launch a rocket to the moon, unleashing AI on the problem, and settling for some kind of giant firecracker as a POC. This isn't a POC web engine; it&#x27
48.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
You're welcome; big fan of your blog and a former Django dev myself. Just made some last edits above so not sure which version you saw. I toned it down a bit and clarified some stuff...
49.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
I don't think it's all copy/pasted; it is quite an original byzantine architecture. You're right that lots of code appears only used in unit-tests, of which there is an enormous amount(making it hard to tell whether what
50.
by polyglotfacto 9mo ago
I'm a maintainer of Servo which is another web engine project. Although I dissented on the decision, we banned the use of AI. Outside of the project I've been enjoying agentic coding and I do think it can be used already today to
51.
How I am learning distributed systems(medium.com)
2 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments
52.
Programming Servo: just hanging around(medium.com)
2 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments
53.
Programming Servo: the bird’s-eyes view(medium.com)
3 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments
54.
Rust: Regret-Less Concurrency (2019)(medium.com)
2 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments
55.
by polyglotfacto 6y ago
Yes, I would say the tricky part is accurately modelling what you want. Also, instead of actual nondeterministic behavior, I think that you rather want different things to be deterministic. The article is an example of "task parallelis
56.
Rust concurrency: the archetype of a message-passing bug(medium.com)
187 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|92 comments
57.
Rust concurrency: the archetype of a message-passing bug(medium.com)
1 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments
58.
Programming Servo: Integrating Streams(medium.com)
1 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments
59.
by polyglotfacto 6y ago
Calling a method on an object could potentially alter the internal state of that object. So in the context of some sort of concurrent execution, calling a method implies first of all having a direct reference to the object from the thread o
60.
Rust concurrency: the single-writer principle(medium.com)
90 points by polyglotfacto 6y ago|0 comments

More ›