19,612 karma · joined June 22, 2009
https://codeplusequalsai.com
Previously: PressureNet
https://web.archive.org/web/20070112064939/http://www.apple....
Slightly OT but the first iPhone ran OS X at launch.
I think as time went by and the "OS X" running on phones diverged more and more, they renamed to iPhone OS and then iOS some time later? Something like that anyway.
I’m firmly in the camp that their rate limits are entirely reasonable.
I thought it was against all the app stores rules to spam notifications that the user doesn’t want. Maybe I am mistaken.
However, I have noticed that the AST code quality heavily depends on how common it is in the training set. I think I will have to add documentation to it through RAG or something - because OpenAI's models that I'm using seem to have limited experience writing esprima for JavaScript for example.
So it's hit or miss. In some cases I do feel like I'm throwing stupid compute at solving small problems and it's unnecessary - however, as I work on the project, it is getting better and better at successfully making the modifications. Some of that is me improving the prompts, some of it is OpenAI improving the models themselves, and some of it is the infrastructure I'm building for the project itself.
I did notice a huge improvement when o1-mini released. It is dramatically better at writing the AST code than GPT-4o or 4o-mini. I haven't tried Claude 3.5 yet but I've been hearing it does an exceptional job at code writing - not sure about my AST requirements though!
My initial goal is to let users make webapp prototypes and iterate on them by writing tickets for the AI to complete.
I for some reason call it Code+=AI: https://codeplusequalsai.com
That is the exact problem I am trying to solve: modifying code with LLMs really sucks most of the time. I am trying a solution with Abstract Syntax Trees: I have the LLM write the code that will write the code you need. That is, modify the source tree rather than the text representation.
I wrote about my approach here: https://codeplusequalsai.com/static/blog/prompting_llms_to_m...
I do have it working for some cases quite well, but there are lots of pitfalls with this approach too. It does take a lot of context and the LLMs aren't really that well-versed at writing specifically esprima code for example. BeautifulSoup does work better, I guess because more people use it and there's more data in the training set.
I'm adding one language at a time, currently have HTML, CSS, Javascript and Python all kind-of working. It's pretty neat but I'm not sure how well it scales yet to larger projects and more difficult requirements/implementations.
I swear they don't even have a human review any of it for even 1 second. These pictures are just....really really gross-looking. They don't even look like food. They don't even look like staged pictures for marketing of food. They look....cursed from the devil himself.
I think I read that no, in fact, I am not expanding. The space that I occupy is also not expanding. In fact, no space anywhere near us is expanding. The expansion (we think?!) happens due to dark matter (?) which is not evenly distrubuted and which we can kind of measure (?) and we can know that there isn't any here (?)
Maybe someone who knows more about this can fill in the question marks or otherwise correct me.
Prototypes are fun! Obviously production code or serious projects are different. But I've found a new joy in building software since GPT-4 came out - it's more fun than ever to build small ideas.
I used node as a new grad for things it wasn’t meant for and that’s how I learned what it is good at and what it isn’t.
I wrote about my approach here using ASTs: https://www.codeplusequalsai.com/static/blog/prompting_llms_...
You wrote in your post that you 'regenerate' a file - is that how you do it? Is it reliable? How does that work on big files? Does it fail at reproducing the rest of the file that should remain unchanged sometimes?
Thanks for answering any of these! Great project!
But the quote above says "If..." and then makes a statement that isn't true and then having a conclusion based on that false premise. I can tell you it isn't true because I can recall countless times in the last few months alone where writing down my ideas has resulted in a muddier thought; lost ideas while writing them down; confusing me and missing some parts; it does not "always make them more precise and more complete". So the rest of the statement is just silly.
Sure, sometimes writing down ideas helps clear things up. Most times even. But always?! Definitely not.