It’s worse than that. Eventually everybody calls into code that hits hardware. That is the level that the compiler (ironically?) can no longer make guarantees. Registers change outside the scope of the currently running program all the time. Reading a register can cause other registers on a chip to change. Random chips with access to a shared memory bus can modify the memory that the comipler deduced was static. There be dragons everywhere at the hardware layer and no compiler can ever reason correctly about all of them, because, guess what, rev2 of the hardware could swap a footprint compatible chip clone that has undocumented behavior that. So even if you gave all you board information to the compiler, the program could only be verifiably correct for one potential state of one potential hardware rev.
Sure, but eliminating bugs isn't a binary where you either eliminate all of them or it's a useless endeavor. There's a lot of value in eliminating a lot of bugs, even if it's not all of them, and I'd argue that empirically Rust does actually make it easier to avoid quite a large number of bugs that are often found in C code in spite of what you're saying.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I think it would necessarily be a good idea to try to rewrite an existing codebase that a team apparently doesn't trust they actually understand. There are a lot of other factors that would go into deciding to do a rewrite than just "would the new language be a better choice in a vaccuum", and I tend to be somewhat skeptical that rewriting something that's already widely being used will be possible in a way that doesn't end up risking breaking something for existing users. That's pretty different from "the language literally doesn't matter because you can't verify every possible bug on arbitrary hardware" though.
I’m strongly reminded of early google every time I use AI for research. I used to be able to know little about a topic, try to search on it and get shit results. But, google would give me pages of results. So I could skim a lot and eventually on page 10, I stumble across some term of art, and that term would greatly improve my search. Rinse and repeat, and I’d have a good sense about the topic I was interested in.
You can’t really do that with google anymore, and I can’t remember the last time I bothered to actually learn something that wasn’t trivial from google. ChatGPT, however, has been a game changer. I can ask a really dumb question and get some basic info about the thing I’m asking about, and while it’s often not quite what I’m looking for, it gives me clues to follow, and I can quickly zero in on what I’m looking for, often in new contexts.
As an autodidact who’s main motivation to go to college was to get access to the stacks and direct internet access, I can’t even begin to tell you how game changing LLMs seem to be for learning.
To your point though, my concern is we don’t know how to teach how to learn, and LLMs will likely seduce many into bad behavior and poor research hygiene. I treat my research the same way I attack the stacks, but take someone who’s never been to a research library and ask them to create a report on some topic, and just why? That is the basic resistance, why?, why do what an LLM is almost literally built to do. Yet that is also highly related to individual learning, to take a bunch of disperate sources and synthesize output related to the input.
I suspect we’ll learn how to use LLMs in the same way we learned how to use calculators. But I have no doubt that on average (or maybe median or mode?) calculators have made us less capable to do basic arithmetic, and I suspect LLMs will also cause a great percentage of the population to be worse at sythesizing information. I’d hope that it’s only the same people who would have otherwise only gotten their information from TV, but I do have a slight fear it will creep past that subsection of the population.
You joke, but this is the very problem I always run into vibe coding anything more complex than basically mashing multiple example tutorials together. I always try to shorthand things, and end up going around in circles until I specify what I want very cleanly, in basically what amounts to psuedocode. Which means I've basically written what I want in python.
This can still be a really big win, because of other things that tend to be boiler around the core logic, but it's certainly not the panacea that everyone who is largely incapable of being precise with language thinks it is.
This drips of sarcasm. While the parent comment is low quality, it can be seen as merely noise. your comment actively makes this site toxic. Please refrain from such comments in the future.
I think it’s satire, not sarcasm. Mocking sycophant but ultimately hollow AIs, by imitating them. And, in the end, concurring with GP. Highlighting both the ways in which GP is correct, and filling in the gaps in implementation between the originally proposed dystopia, and the one we actively find ourselves marching towards.
I disagree with this. I think the comment was perfect quality. As we are slowly sinking into totalitarianism in the US, you will understand that this "noise" was in fact the signal you should have been listening to.
Forgive me, my bar is high, but I tend to agree with you. I didn’t have a good way to indicate that I find value in a small number of comments like these without potentially undermining my greater desire to avoid toxic comments here.
I would contact Facebook legal directly with documents showing the problem. Legal’s job is always to minimize liability for the company, and they have levers they can pull in any organization, no matter how “hyper scale” they claim to be.
Bonus points for figuring out the correct language to use to imply repercussions for failure to act without any actual threats. Patio11 has written about similarly worded letters with regards to debt collections and banking, and I know that there are all kinds of magic incantations in law for all kinds of transgretions.
"Patio11" itself is a magic incantion for your friendly neighborhood LLM, along with "dangerous professional". You can use these to prompt for suitable language in the email, as well as other courses of action.
Could be the way guns are defined in UK are different. There is a fundamental problem in US law specifically, that you can purchase legally nearly any part of a gun separately, but only need to register the lower receiver. These are parts that take very little stress and can be relatively easily printed and used to hold together all the other parts that actually hold the stress of firing the bullet.
This is at least true for some specific rifles, where there’s a whole industry around selling unfinished receivers that are relatively easy to mill down with common machining tools to be able to assemble unregistered rifles.
My guess, is that these bills are a knee jerk reaction to constituents who’ve seen some tik toks talking about this. Though the conspiracist in me thinks that it’s mostly an excuse for control. This means, this bill is also coming for the UK too…
> These are parts that take very little stress and can be relatively easily printed and used to hold together all the other parts that actually hold the stress of firing the bullet.
A lot of the polymer guns (1911, AR15) need to be reinforced with metal at certain places for any kind of reliablity. A Glock doesn't need to be, because the material was invented by the designer of the gun and the gun was intended to be a polymer frame from the start.
Same. I was afraid that there was some bad egg that managed to get into Adafruit, or maybe someone was having a real bad day. You never know what kind of person someone is off camera, but Adafruit as a company has always managed to give off the most wholesome vibes.
I'll be interested to see how this unfolds. I have little skin in the game being mostly upstream of the supply chain, but I've had reason to purchase from both companies, and hope this doesn't blow up into a huge thing.
On a tangent, I’m amazed at how bad most random crimps I see on the internet are. Also, the number of people who debate the use of solder on crimps without discussing potential issues with said solder is too high.
We had a problem trying to bring up a couple of Pi 5, hoping they'd represent something reproducable we could deploy on multiple sites as an isolation stage for remote firmware programming. Everything looked great, until we brought one somewhere and untethered it from ethernet, and we started getting bizarre hangs. Turned out the wifi was close enough to the PCIe ribbon cable that bursts of wifi broadcasts were enough to disrupt the signal to the SSD, and essentially unmount it (taking root with it). Luckily we were able to find better shielded cables, but it's not something we were expecting to have to deal with.
Raising taxes should never be seen as a way to raise revenue. Even if the Laffer curve has come under attack, there is still some profit maximizing rate which I’m positive most modern countries are beyond both at a static rate and at a growth and future revenue maximizing rate. No we don’t tax at this point to increase tax revenue. We do tax to shape what society looks like.
Right now society doesn’t look very good to so many people in the US it’s almost hard to talk about. Job growth is literally people saying, “hey, tomorrow, I can see it look better. We can spend time and resources to create something we all want more than today.” When job growth is low, that vision must also be low.
Taxation can turn that around in an industry. It can turn that around in aggregate. It does thay by both signaling to players, and by changing the game tree payout structure.
I think much of the taxation conversation right now is unfortunate because it keeps getting couched in terms of tax brackets, and that is almost a strawman at this point (even if many people think it’s important). I would say we need to tax the 1% differently. For instance, stock buy backs are currently a hugely distorting effect on the world economy. You can start by greatly taxing that.
The real thing people are talking about when talking about taxing the 1% isn’t just about tax brackets, it’s more about how taxes don’t materially effect people once they reach certain thresholds. It’s the same fundamental problem with traffic tickets. They are not proportional to general wealth so that means it’s a set of laws that apply less and less as one gains wealth which not only feels unfair, it is arguably a corrupting influence undermining the rule of law.
I am choosing not to get involved in a discussion about tax policy miniutiae as I am not an expert in any related way; instead, I wanted to provide factual context to the oft-repeated 'America was better in the 1950s due to the tax rate on the rich,' claim so folks might be able to better understand what they're attempting to say.
reply