Why do people fall for this. We're compressing knowledge, including the source code of SQLite into storage, then retrieve and shift it along latents at tremendous cost in a while loop, basically brute forcing a franken version of the original.
That isn't true, not by a long shot. Improvements happen because someone is inspired to do something differently.
How will that ever happen if we're obsessed with proving we can reimplement shit that's already great?
Also from actual researchers, I know just one person who did something actually novel and it was with queuing.
I agree that rehashing the same ideas over and over again is sufficient - for some strange, complacent definition of the word. It's not the only way to think about the discipline, and thank goodness enough smart people realize that.
> Also from actual researchers, I know just one person who did something actually novel and it was with queuing.
Think how many people have to be trying at any given time for it to happen at all.
While I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that humans and LLM creativity is broadly similar (combining ideas absorbed elsewhere in new ways), when we ask for something that already exists it's basically just laundering open source code
In reality, LLMs can (currently) build worse versions of things that already exist: a worse database than SQL, a worse C compiler than GCC, a worse website than one done by a human. I'd really like to see some agent create a better version of something that already exists, or, at least, something relatively novel.
But it enables people who can't do these things at all to appear to be able to do these things and claim reputation and acclaim that they don't deserve for skills they don't have.