IshKebab

> it turns out, not so much

Why though? The comment you're replying to is explaining how the accusations of poor privacy are nonsense and you've just replied "I disagree because they have poor privacy".

I mean I'm not going to hand over any data to Facebook if I can help it but it doesn't seem like there are any specific issues here.

Hard to disagree. I'm interested, but... the writing sucks.

And there's no excuse now anyway the latest Opus/Astra models are actually tolerable. Use those if you must.

What are you saying? It's not ok for it to be free because they're using that to encourage people to use their paid services? Uhm no shit.

And your comment about LLMs is even sillier. Not only did they buy it 5 years before LLMs became relevant, but there's nothing stopping anyone other than Microsoft from downloading all of GitHub. Look at grep.app for example.

They've been a great steward of GitHub. You people have no perspective. They've kept an insanely generous free tier - free private repos, free CI runners including windows and Mac! And no ads.

Name one other company that would do that.

I wouldn't say it's disproportionate. Strong static typing is massively valuable for humans too. Maybe it's just more obvious to some people because you actually can write the same large program twice using the same "person" and a different language.

Previously studies into the benefits of static typing for humans were always a bit flawed because you can't do that with people. And tbh I don't know why but there are a surprising number of people that don't appreciate static typing. My guess is a combination of ego and laziness, which doesn't apply to LLMs.

The days when AI always means slop are gone. It still often does, but the latest models can be used to get very high quality code in many situations. I haven't checked the code here but I would be surprised if it's bad.

People use words in a way that is useful. Really this just shows that the pedantic academic definition of GC is not the most useful one.

In common use, GC refers to mark and sweep and similar systems where allocations are not freed at an easy to predict time.

> The hardware team at Jane Street designs FPGAs and ASICs that run some of the fastest trading systems in the world, and the day-to-day work is full of puzzles just like this one: staring at a sea of gates, timing reports, or waveforms and slowly teasing out what’s really going on.

Although not really any more. AI is really good at debugging failing tests so I no longer have to spend hours - sometimes it was even days - staring at waves and instruction traces.

Tbh that's one thing I won't miss.

Tbh it doesn't even matter if humans turn out to have a soul, or quantum microtubules or whatever other magic LLMs can't have.

The normal definition of the word "thinking" definitely includes what LLMs do. Hell people used to say computers were thinking even before AI. It's super weird to get all uppity about the semantics of the word now.

There is no argument. It's just people's reflex reactions.

The technical excuses they come up with (e.g. that the server can detect it and send different content) are just post-hoc justifications for their instinct.

Just ignore them.

Uhm... emit the errors and fail the compilation? What else would you do?

Maybe there's some work to do to make that happen cleanly but the desired behaviour seems pretty obvious.

> If I make an AI capable of self-sustainment on the internet

I'm really surprised nobody has done that yet. With how cheap AI is to run these days it would only need to make a small amount of money (e.g. through hacking).

Someone should set one up with the long term goal of getting egg on LeCun's face.

> These models aren’t thinking.

They are for any definition of the word that makes any kind of sense. I'm sure you have a contorted definition that magically only includes humans though...

> I'm guessing b/c it can be used to make merchandise

I doubt it. How much merchandise relies on high quality 3D scans?

I think the real reason is that a lot of people are naturally paranoid control freaks. Their instinct is that these scans should be secret and they never really think beyond that.

Seems like an easy win! I'm kind of surprised nobody did this already. I guess someone will need to reimplement this by hand given Rust's AI policy, but this is still great because it demonstrates that it's a really good idea.

Yeah AI is extremely good at reverse engineering compared to humans. It's one of those things were there's a huge amount of tedious but not super complex work. I think if you can set up a good harness for the agent it can probably write complete drivers.

The most difficult part is likely that a lot of hardware is easily brickable if you do the wrong thing, so I'm not going to let it loose on e.g. my solar inverter.. even though their software is shit and I'd love to replace it. (Don't buy QCells.)

Ugh guys... The front page of your project is the most important thing there is. If you can't even be bothered to write it yourself then I don't have much hope for the rest of your project.

I would imagine they're thinking it increases sympathy with the victim, which doesn't benefit the killer.

But yeah it would be funny if this backfires. 10 years for murder seems like a great deal for the murderer!

This is what let me understand lambdas. Great tool.

Is this a unikernel? Your ASCII art diagram is broken.

Fax was never cool.

And `cp`.

I think the way to handle this is to just feed it into another AI agent (a better one) and ask it how serious the issue actually is. Fight fire with fire!

Gotta admit it's weird that they haven't set up Claude to fix them! Tbf my threshold for "AI now writes good enough code" was Astra or Opus 5.5 and they only just released that.

Ha funny but no.

Nobody is one-shotting big projects. Even humans can't do that.

Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do.

Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.

I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.

Uhm I'm pretty sure a severity score is supposed to be a score of severity.

Yeah maybe it made sense in the past, but not in the age of AI.