Just deployed OpenStack by using the Kolla Ansible installer. Works great coupled to Ceph for storage. Thanks to Broadcom we are moving in the right direction. Proxmox as fallback plan but it looks like OpenStack is solid.
I would guess in a matter of 1 - 2 years, a random amateur vibe coding a brand new DB will get much better reliability and correctness guarantees than whatever this is. This is just pure laziness.
Its not happening, at least not with LLMs, maybe some future technology will be better with that, but not language models. Writing such a complex software as database engine requires strategy, awareness and rigor. It is somewhat similar to winning a sweaty game of chess with an experienced opponent. LLMs are great with broadness of their knowledge, matching patterns and synthesising that knowledge, but they fail with strategy and awareness part. And this is why they are bad in chess.
It is combinatorial explosion of possible states (not as in memory state of program, but the differing visions of the next state of architecture). Plus high impact of mistakes, suboptimal solutions and randomness when switching between states.
How does this make the case for humans forever exceeding LLMs in planning and architecture? It doesn’t explain why a neural net couldn’t learn to do better than humans on this task at all. It certainly doesn’t point out any deficiency of attention, transformers, layers, encoders, decoders, or how the layers or their inputs/outputs are set up.
Yeah, good question, thanks. Llm reasoning is done exclusively in the way of symbolic manipulation. Human reasoning is done not in symbols but in mental models that are hard to explain for today science but we have evidence they are somewhat efficient for producing correct programs, at least after sufficient training. Ron's post makes the case to explain that symbolic reasoning is not sufficient for producing correct programs. Hope this helps.
> Llm reasoning is done exclusively in the way of symbolic manipulation.
No, LLMs are not a classical symbolic system applying explicit rules to symbols.
The article asserts general guarantees of program correctness have fundamental limits, but it explicitly says those limits apply to humans too. While that suggests neither humans nor LLMs can reliably solve every planning or verification problem, it says nothing about which will do better on the software problems people actually encounter.
It certainly does not present a fundamental problem with LLMs as they exist today.
> No, LLMs are not a classical symbolic system applying explicit rules to symbols.
I do not mean that LLM is a classic symbolic system that generates symbols according to rules,
but instead it's a system that generates symbols according to recorded probabilities. The focus here is on symbols: the LLM reasoning starts with token, ends with token, and everything in between is symbols (tokens). Quite different from how human brain works, where symbols are not that much involved in reasoning.
> The article asserts general guarantees of program correctness have fundamental limits, but it explicitly says those limits apply to humans too.
Yep, however I would like to assert that today we have evidence of systems architected by humans and behaving correctly (like Linux kernel), while there are no evidence of systems architected by LLMs that behave correctly. Even the systems which are architected by LLMs with human assistance (such as Claude Code or Codex) routinely have horrendous bugs (you're welcome to search "Claude Code Bug" and "Codex Bug" on this very website).
> It certainly does not present a fundamental problem with LLMs as they exist today.
The article was created 10 years ago that is why it does not address LLMs. However it asserts that mathematics modeling is not that helpful for writing correct programs. As long as LLM reasoning is closer to mathematics modeling than human mental modeling, LLMs will be worse at writing correct programs than humans. Some future technology less focused on symbolic reasoning could change that, but today it's not on sufficient level.
Holy shit so are you confident that “Its not happening, at least not with LLMs, maybe some future technology will be better with that, but not language models” or not?
We don't need code anymore, we just need intermediate deterministic artifacts that the AI can produce and the user can validate in order to circumvent the - by definition - non-deterministic nature of LLMs.
What should we call these intermediate deterministic artifacts? Code!
I think there's a big distinction between needing code - the machine abstraction for electrical logic gates - and code that will ever need to be read by a human.
Yeah we'll still need to know a sequence to flip bits in the right order, but it isn't code you'll recognize.
You fail to appreciate that creativity is more than just code. I would argue code is the easy part. The difficult part which you obviously dont appreciate or value is being creative and "different". Thinking what or how something can change or be better.
Don’t want to weigh in on the crypto debate; just your argument.
X enables good things but X also enables bad things.
Freedom of speech enables democracies, but it also enables mass manipulation.
By definition any freedom enables any possible action resulting from that freedom.
Note that this is not really the case with everything either. The same argument can’t be made (reasonably) about biological weapons for example.
IMO it’s very hard to make a proper argument pro or against crypto in lay terms. It will be a never ending argument. The fundamental is that of centralization vs decentralization and that’s a relevant reasoning despite of what the current incarnation of currencies and behaviors we’ve been seeing.
And Apple apologists confuse stale designs, unchanged chassis, and subpar spec sheets for “intentional design” and “holistic products.”
I think some of those folks should face some facts:
- The notch on the MacBook Air and Pro lineups is unnecessarily huge and embarrassing. It’s obvious that Apple intended to implement FaceID and couldn’t get it into the notch by their deadline, then they just left the huge notch there with barely any software consideration for it, like how your menu bar icons and menus can just disappear if there isn’t enough room with no recourse.
- There is no design or cost reason for Apple to be this late on offering a touch screen on their laptops. There is no downside to a customer who buys one and doesn’t want a touch screen, they can just disable it.
- The 60Hz displays on the Air are not necessary for any kind of product quality or cost reason and are simply below-par for what you can get on similarly priced Windows laptops. 100% artificial product line anchoring.
- The idea that there was no such thing an OLED display that was “good enough for a MacBook Pro” before 2026 is absurd.
Marketing. macOS has a minority share of desktop operating systems, "best recommended laptops" is an easily-won Keynesian beauty contest.
But, that lowest-common-denominator design philosophy gave us innovations like the Butterfly Keyboard, Touch Bar, Dynamic Island, and now a touchscreen. None of those features inspire much faith in Apple's ability to listen to what their users want from the Macbook. Most people I know want a more powerful iPad, not an iPad-like Mac.
So it cannot possibly be explained as Macs/macOS are still a better product despite some obvious flaws and drawbacks? It has to be cynical marketing and some kind of consumerist corporate conspiracy? I don't get your argument.
Macs and macOS have a very thin market segment: college students, mobile devs and prosumers. They market to them heavily, earning the Mac their recommendation.
Outside of those niches, in places like game development, backend work, high-performance ARM datacenters, edge compute and personal computing, Macs are a second-class-citizen and rarely get recommended. macOS has a niche, those people love it, but it has not broken out into the larger market for decades now. Macs are a minority, still.
Macs are highly recommended by people in the know, like people in computer science departments over the last decade, by HN commenters and specialty magazines, etc. Those are better signals than the superficial market picture you paint.
They are great devices but they cost more. So you would not see them "recommend" in those industries you cite. Also it is reductive to accuse Apple of marketing.
What's much more plausible is that despite being a great product it also costs more. Not marketing nor the fact of being a minority.
It's also weird because your argument disingenuously ignores the wealth of HN commentary in the past about how great the M-chip MacBooks are. It's like ignoring actual reasons and doing this kind of armchair technical market analysis to prove one's point. It's a troll intellectual move to attribute success to marketing and failure to "because it is unpopular". Seeing your other replies in this thread suggests a common pattern of bias, not a one-off.
> Macs are highly recommended by people in the know
This is exactly what I said in the last comment. "People in the know" is a statement that narrows down your audience to a select few groups that Apple narrowcasts to. You arbitrarily ignored the rest of the market as being unqualified to shop for themselves. We have the usage statistics that prove macOS is not a popular alternative to Windows or even Chromebooks. The vast majority of PC shoppers do not buy Macs.
You might call it "disingenuous" to ignore your cherry-picked audience, but I did acknowledge the niches that Apple caters to. You are the one that is unable to reconcile Apple's halo of quality with their mediocre sales performance and rejection by the market at-large. Macs make Apple less revenue than novelty devices like the iPad, and the iPhone blows it out of the water in terms of install base. Apple Silicon isn't even the highest-demand high-performance ARM chipset right now, Nvidia's Grace SOC is. And Grace sucks, but it's modular and scalable enough to replace Apple's discontinued Mac Pro niche.
Cut it however you want; M-series Apple Silicon is chopped liver even in the middle of a compute shortage. The HN echo chamber said that unified memory and AArch64 would irreversibly change the direction of PC design forever, but both of those features have been ignored by other OEMs for the past 7 years. Instead, Apple Silicon is starting to copy design characteristics of competing hardware like Nvidia's CUDA GPUs. So, maybe you shouldn't trust "people in the know" to give you an honest accounting of how Apple Silicon competes with the computers that most people are buying. Their subjective statements cannot be extrapolated into an objective metric.
You must be trolling if half dozen replies in this thread you want me to think that Marvel films are better than art films because they have a bigger market share. This is not worthy of serious reply and it seems the problem is your worldview, not the merit of any argument about Apple.
Well, the commenter said “best recommended,” and usually “best recommended” means it’s at the top of the sales charts or at least somewhere close, not #4 in global marketshare.
If your point is that Apple computers are Oscar-bait for pretentious snobs and you’re just not getting why The French Dispatch is actually a good movie, I’m not sure that analogy helps.
Just like the Oscar snob insults people for enjoying marvel movies, what you’re saying is kind of an insult to how good Lenovo laptops are.
For example, Apple has absolutely nothing that answers to the popularity and suitability for gaming of the Lenovo Legion product line. Want to play games on a Mac? Too bad, it’s a terrible platform for it. Just like a mid-tier art house film, you’re not allowed to have fun on a Mac.
The ThinkPad X9 15p has a really decent set of advantages over a MacBook Pro including a better port selection and better battery life than any M5 MacBook product. The repairability of the Lenovo lineup puts Apple to shame.
Apple is the only vertical computer company left from the 1980s. That’s operating system plus hardware under one roof, all the other companies are dead Sun, SGI, Digital etc…, Microsoft and Google dabble in hardware and both do nothing but lose money in the hardware area because just releasing a Me-too badly made product doesn’t work or I should say isn’t profitable.
> Apple is the only vertical computer company left from the 1980s.
> Microsoft and Google dabble in hardware and both do nothing but lose money in the hardware area
How is losing money relevant here, you started off the argument by saying Apple is the only vertical computer company left. Which is clearly not true and as your own comment contradicts.
You should try using a Surface Pro once. It is what the MacBook Pro is becoming now, only it is 5 years ahead. Yes, Windows sucks. But, the form factor and its usability is unmatched. I wouldn't just write it off as "dabbling".
I wouldn't bother. If you scroll through Danox's comment history, he repeats these same few talking points without any ability to substantiate his claims:
"Apple will bring memory in-house" (no further explanation, apparently)
"Vertical computers need a comeback" (ignoring why they originally died?)
"$GROUP needs to buy an ARM ISA license" (Arm has to make it worthwhile)
It's beyond my understanding how people can read the news and come up with this stuff. Perhaps it is beyond the commentor's understanding, as well.
One big problem with HN recently is the sheer number of bots - this account's pattern looks eerily similar to one and the next big issue which has been an issue for over a decade now is many folks here own Apple stock. They have a conflict of interest and their arguments are extremely skewed in favor of Apple.
While the author and book here seem trustworthy, the issue is real and likely more upon all of us. Nothing that we output will escape the same scrutiny, at least for a while until we will probably have own dedicated AI to scrutinize everything that gets in front of us
reply