9,764 karma · joined September 26, 2018
Any mentor type figure is going to be at least partially evaluated by progress of the mentees against some benchmark.
If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…
I don't want cheap crap, but I suddenly appreciated why we've moved away from tables that can support a car.
Otherwise, why bother to run your vibe-coded website on nginx? Just have the LLM spit out its own novel web server, its own novel TCP stack, its own novel OS for that matter.
For this specific problem, I'm always inclined to just keep a 1800W space heater or two in the closet.
Cold weather heat pumps help because they stay above 1x for longer, but you also wind up needing to oversize a bit.
If agentic coding of good quality becomes too cheap to meter, all that is left are the deep problems.
The counter-argument is that code is the only way to concisely and unambiguously express how everything should work.
When crashing the program is acceptable and correctness preconditions can be efficiently checked, postconditions usually can be too.
What's interesting to me is the combination of two claims: formal verification is used when crashes are not acceptable, and crashing when formal assumptions are violated is therefore not acceptable. This makes sense on the surface - but the program is only proven crashproof when the formal assumptions hold. That is all formal verification proves.
"formal verification of the code" -> "high integrity system"
Formal verification is simply a method of ensuring your code behaves how you intend.Now, if you want to formally verify your program can tolerate any number of bits flip on any variables at any moment(s) in time, it will happily test this for you. Unfortunately, assuming presently known software methods, this is an unmeetable specification :)
- But if you aren't comfortable crashing the program if the assumptions are violated, then what is your formal verification worth? Not much, because the formal verification only holds if the assumptions hold, and you are indicating you don't believe they will hold.
- True, some are infeasible to check. In that case, you could then check them weakly or indirectly. For example, check if the first two indices of the input array are not sorted. You could also check them infrequently. Better to partially check your assumptions than not check at all.
I enjoy the outdoors but it’s also a great reminder of how much I love my dishwashing machine. Repairing it might take a few hours every few years, but it saves far more time on net.
I’m a bit biased, I’ll admit, as I once served on such an HOA that was near the brink of insolvency and wrestling with owners who would dodge their share of funding basic maintenance for years at a time.
Most of the ire, perhaps, is really directed at single-family HOAs, however.
This is one of my back-of-mind hopes for AI. Enlist computers as our allies in making computer software faster. Imagine if you could hand a computer brain your code, and ask it to just make the program faster. It becomes a form of RL problem, where the criteria are 1) a functionally equivalent program 2) that is faster.