670 karma · joined July 13, 2016
I can reproduce the double line issue in part 2, this was my mistake and I missed it as part of my editing process. I'll delete part 2 while I make the corrections.
I could make this distinction in part 3 (not written yet) although I want to balance not misleading readers, but not overcomplicating it too early on.
I can clarify this earlier in part 1 or 2 instead of in to-be-written part 3.
> One part of that part was published as a preview in a "Domenica" of "Il sole 24 ore".
Perhaps it is in the June 21 2009 issue.
Is this when using structured outputs?
I don't think this is a great idea, however, as now CI is dependent on my flaky laptop's wifi/internet connection/IP address, has the potential to be contaminated by something running on my machine, build logs can be modified, environment shape/architectures are all different and can't be easily controlled, I now have access to all of the CI secrets and can impersonate the CI, etc.
For example, I asked Claude-3.7 to make my tests pass in my C# codebase. It did, however, it wrote code to detect if a test runner was running, then return true. The tests now passed, so, it achieved the goal, and the code diff was very small (10-20 lines.) The actual solution was to modify about 200-300 lines of code to add a feature (the tests were running a feature that did not yet exist.)
The reproducible-Python notebook problem/notebook for researchers mentioned in the podcast inspired me to create a new project, branch-pad https://github.com/alexyorke/branch-pad which is an interactive Python notebook environment that allows you to create and explore multiple branches of code execution.