Inference is super easy, you already have a myriad libraries that accomplish this. In fact if you read the source, this is release is mostly a wrapper around those same libs.
Which is spikier qktqb or rrqtyun? For me personally, rrqtyun is spikier although certain models seem to disagree. GPT (Astra) believes qktqb is spikier.
This one is also a curiosity
> isn't klop right at the edge between spiky and round
> Yes. “Klop” is borderline, but leans slightly spiky.
Pardon the snark, but they literally wrote an article [1] about giving up on code reviews because they push 30k _changes_ (I assume that means commits, but they don’t clarify), and were bottlenecked on reviews.
Instead, they claim to just review the _intent_ of the PR and presume correctness will be caught by more AI.
To me, the more absurd part is that they’re pushing that much code.
To put it in perspective:
Software # Commits Equiv. Time
--—----- --------- -----------
Nginx 8,758 7h
uv 11,081 9h
Vim 24,608 20h
Go 67,914 2.3d
Git 82,513 2.8d
VS Code 168,140 5.6d
Emacs 183,611 6.1d
Rust 343,063 11.4d
* Equiv time equals the amount of time it would take Anthropic to push that many commits, given their 30k changes/day estimate provided in the article linked below.
It generated some interesting discussions here on hacker news [2] [3].
FYI: The last is a blog post at simonwilliamson.net about the source post, which was flagged appropriately, but I left since it had a few dozen comments as well.
Controversial opinion, but new programming languages are desperately needed, _especially_ in the age of LLMs. Simply put, not all languages provide equal expressiveness, even if they're all Turing complete.
Not only that, but the most important thing that a programming language does from an expressiveness perspective is define what your can't do. I often like to say that when there are an infinite number of programs you could write, programming is the act of narrowing that space until you're left with one program that you did write. Bugs are deviations from the one you were targeting, and a programming language can dramatically improve the process by eliminating a lot of the ones you don't want up front (ideally ones that might be easy to accidentally hit instead of your target)
Having never heard someone claim that before, I honestly would have assumed someone saying that was joking, because it doesn't sound like it would work well at all!
Elon Musk has predicted code will be obsolete by the end of this year, and the AI will just be writing binaries directly better than any compiler. I'll leave it to you to decide if he was serious :P
Between the drugs and all the other completely wrong things he's claimed before, his level of intended seriousness is completely irrelevant to how seriously I take anything he says, but maybe a useful data point in terms of what other out of touch CEOs might believe in coming years.
that's not controversial to me. Programming languages that prioritize LLM creation/editing/reasons over it, while making it easy for humans to review and edit, but not being the primary author of the literal code.
Every single job requires many YoE at this point. Every. Single. One. And the worst part is that they really mean "years of employment" and not experience. Pursuing a PhD full time effectively _is_ employment, yet most companies and HR departments don't see it this way. Likewise for independent research, open source work, self-employment etc. My guess is he has dedicated his life to his PhD studies, meaning he has little "ReAl ExPerIeNcE" so no one wants to hire him because... reasons? Who knows, hiring is broken.
A PhD is not the same thing as professional experience. The contexts, goals, and nature of the work are very different, and employers are right to not count them as the same. It's more meaningful than undergrad, sure, but a 4 year PhD is not 4 years of professional experience (it might be worth more in some cases, but it is on average going to be worth less).
For many job roles I'd take someone with good relevant history and references over someone who wrote some dissertation on an unrelated topic to the problem at hand but had no actual experiences working with a team solving problems.
Now if their dissertation was actually entirely relevant to the exact problem at hand, that'd be different. But such things are pretty rare. The problems PhD's are concerned with are rarely the same, boring, problems most organizations experience.
Yep. If you think your job involves "writing code" as the core part of your responsibilities, write yourself off immediately. That career is dead and dusted. Sadly most companies still haven't realized this, given how few Architect openings exist (and those that do, most are asking for 20+ years of exp lol)
In my professional experience most people I encountered that held the architect title didnt really know anything about proper software engineering and just knew how to talk well and hold meetings with many different stakeholders - which tbf is not a trivial skill, but I can’t imagine everyone becoming architects and no one doing actual work they understand.
Definition of what the role actually means can change as well over time, in the same way that a civil engineer also isn’t physically doing the construction.
Most companies aren't gonna need an architect, but if you can tell and demonstrate a good story around quality/risk/stability they might be interested in that.
Linus himself is actually comically incompetent. He only became famous after the Linux kernel took off... decades ago? Since Git, he has made ZERO code contributions whatsoever (not even to the Linux kernel). He doesn't even review code and has his team of capos do it for him. All in all he's no different than the CEO of some tech company, his thoughts on LLMs are no longer relevant (for more lack of credibility, see his stance on Rust, C++, Go)
reply