AI

So, literally everyone is committed with other people’s borrowed money to the slop generators without even looking back or having a second thought. This bubble will definitely pop some day, just because the promises which has already been made to secure shittons of money will never be fulfilled (but something else, some appearance, will be given instead). What one has to do, then? Well, even the current manifestations of coding LLMs can be used to actual, non-bullshit, non-theoretical 10x productivity boosts. (even 100x is theoretically possible if you know what to ask and how to ask, and for that you need to know what kind of training data has been feed into it and how it was lobotomised afterwards by so-called post-training). ...

This shit is simply amazing at so many levels. They literally feed their slop to each other, producing an convincing cognitive illusion of a meaningful real-time collaboration to a normie. Yes, the idea to extend the context (adding new tokens to a context ‘so far’ with a hope of better outcome – a “better” stream of generated tokens) is by any means not a new one. The amazing part is that it basically pollutes the context with barely relevant slop. ...

AUTHOR: lngnmn2@yahoo.com Here is your humanties in 30 minutes, before the morinig run. https://gemini.google.com/share/f2f48f836118 Try to read this slowly.

AUTHOR: lngnmn2@yahoo.com “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Sherlock Holmes So the “compiler” is there, right on Github [[https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler], and the only interesting question is “but how”? Well, maybe we are grossly exaggerating what might be going on under the hood. There is an enormous, almost unbridgeable gap between a formal view and a statistical view of the world. ...

AUTHOR: lngnmn2@yahoo.com There are a few facts to understand: it has been written from scratch, using an academic literature of the compiler’s sub-field, with focus on IR, SSA, guided by some “compiler people” it does not rely on the legacy gcc internal code which no one really understands, it does not rely on llvm/clang (only the literature) it is not optimizing (all the optimizations are missed) so the generated code quality is worse than gcc -O0 so they frightfully followed all the architecture specifications and ABI standards, which is what slop generators are good for. the actual Rust code has to be evaluated yet (the key metrics are modularity and abstraction, clear abstraction barriers) but I predict it will be an imperative spaghetti crap. lets see. ...

Here we formulate (and analyze the implications of) The Fundamental Problem of LLM-assistant vapecoding. The problem is this: There is, at the moment, no machinery to systematically and correctly bridge the gap between the generated slop (code) and the accompanied verbiage, which appear to define the semantics of the code. What appears to be coherent and consistent is only a cognitive illusion, made out of familiar words, which refer to familiar concepts of the mind, which looks plausible [to the mind]. ...

https://x.com/karpathy/status/2015883857489522876 – 5.5M views. What could we possible do? Meanwhile, my 2 cents: The current Sonet 4.5 via the web-interface (free-tier) is what I have access to. It can generate very convincing verbiage, consistent with we could find in the best books. That only means it has been trained on the [pirated] books too. Last iteration it wrote a very nice few pages summary of the Google’s testing practices, found in the public domain, like the SWE book, Abseil guidelines, the Testing blog, etc. This is only impressive because it managed to combine all these sources into a coherent narrative, without any major hallucinations. ...

Modern coding LLMs are still a shitshow. I would not even comment on the humanties – the “sectarian consensus” abstract (ill-defined) verbiage (subtle bullshit) it could produce – not even an expert could “validate” the “correctness” of the slop (such notion is not defined in their domains). It would be interesting to heavily prompt it about rigorous mathematics, properly captured, generalized and named from the observed aspects of What Is (which is the only proper mathematics, including the derivations of pure abstract algebraic structures, like Monoid, a Group, Latice or even a Category) … Okay, some day. ...

Here is what is possible if you have some education about the last 50 years of research in Program Language semantics, and have a refined taste (influenced by proper mathematics): The last third of the chat, when we switched back to mathematical concepts, contains a significant achievement, which I leave in the form “as it is” for now (without refinement and proper publishing). The whole thing is a nice (but a bit tough) read anyway, and this is why I’m publishing it “as is”. ...

Here some important observations from the long hours of “experiments”. Once there is a simple bug in the slop, the chat does not fix just this very line. Most of the time it regenerates the whole file from scratch, sometimes with slightly different structure and names, suggesting (as one would expect) that it just repeats the whole task (without understanding your “precious” feedback at all) adding your verbiage as additional context (if at all). This is exactly how it fixes compilation errors – by adding them as training data together with the slop which produced the errors, capturing somehow the actually existing relation between the bad code and particular compiler errors. ...