foltik

Ok sure, so an LLM told you all the bugs are fixed and it’s faster than Redis, just like how it told you before that it was formally verified?

Please try to resist the urge of being a meat proxy.

“No.”

Afraid to show the slop?

It would be silly for a cached GET request to have to wait in line behind a bunch of POST requests blocked in serialized database transactions. A cache hit is basically free so it’s not starving any other requests.

Surely you realize most people would disagree?

There’s a _very_ good reason. Humans have a much richer mental mental model of the codebase, design decisions, external factors, etc.

Of course Humans can make errors when translating that to English. But if you’ve read any amount of Claudish it should be obvious that interpolating the code to documentation with an LLM typically produces a significantly worse result in almost every way. Except for superficially “sounding” correct.

You’re engaging in bad faith, and parroting the same false equivalence between security and user freedom that Apple uses to keep a chokehold on their software distribution monopoly.

Having some way to unlock an iPhone doesn’t at all imply it must be done in a way that reduces security, or trusts the average user with upholding it.

Use your imagination. They could require you to have an apple developer account. Or visit an apple store. Or even limit it to a special developer unlocked iPhone flavor.

You’re missing the point. Hackers (in the tinkerer sense) just want to program their own devices, with full access to the capabilities of the underlying hardware. Apple could obviously allow that if they wanted to, in a convenient way that doesn’t increase the attack surface for malware.

Uhh, what? Clearly nobody is arguing that "arbitrary remote execution is good." Apple could easily satisfy everyone by simply allowing users to unlock their own bootloader.

Consider that their point is not just about this specific use case.

Apple spends a huge amount of effort maintaining two different operating systems for what is pretty much the same machine under the hood. Don’t be naive and try to rationalize their bad behavior. They clearly just want to maintain their lucrative software distribution monopoly.

And this is of the typical quality of what you’d get.

80% incoherent narration of random numbers, all down to the 1’s place so it looks super duper precise and impressive if you squint and don’t think too hard, like the “author” seems to have done.

I use them every day, in systems programming. They produce a solution, but it’s often several orders of magnitude away from an optimal one in various dimensions. That’s still quite useful, but for some problems that doesn’t cut it.

To reach a more optimal solution, significant human steering is reqiured for every tiny decision. It’s the same as how early models needed hand holding on the basics, playing out again in the finer details. Human experts need to inject “eureka moments” from the outside.

And no feedback loop that I’ve tried has been able to conjure an understanding of these finer details that, as far as I can tell, just aren’t represented in the weights.

Modeling the basics of software engineering was easy, since things like writing code that passes some tests is easy to RL. But for anything not easily RL-able, we’ve basically ran out of human generated tokens to distill from.

Without some breakthrough in generalization, I remain unconvinced that we’ll be able to model the finer details of software engineering by looping the existing training corpus back into itself. Garbage in, garbage out.