Hacker News Reader

Comment by amelius | Hacker News Reader

If this was true then Python would already have been rewritten to be GIL-free, and the entire ecosystem of Python packages would have been rewritten to respect its API.

View on HN

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! We're on this thread because Cisco is sponsoring piles of tokens at the problem. No such megacorp sponsor exists for this problem for Python. The megacorps have decided not to sponsor that specific problem.

What would be the Python megacorps of choice ? Trading firms ? Not a regular pythoner (pythonist ? pythonian ?) myself.

Pythonista

Google has their own dialect of Python that they use internally that could stand to be faster. Microsoft also uses Python all over the place. (GvR has worked at both of them.) Both of them have, at one time or another, sponsored teams to make Python faster, along with Meta. Just not for the above specific cause.

Absence of evidence is evidence, it's just not very strong evidence.

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

I'm not a lawyer and don't like writing sentences with "probability bordering on certainty", etc.

I imagine it has been, but they didn't release it because the diff is too big to be accepted into regular Python and it would cost more to fix it than use it as is.

With the current sota models code is free.

In my experience it's been much simpler to rewrite programs from Python to <insert lower level language of choice here>

I hope everyone that reads this can understand why it's a ridiculous argument.

Could you explain for those of us who are a bit slower? Why would the absence of a rich sugar daddy for python be evidence that it can't be done?

I can say specific to AI: I have been seeing friends and colleagues do really impressive things with code surpassing what's available in the market and open source in the past few months. The vast majority of them are _not_ releasing their code, for a variety of reasons:

- Their output is hyper-customized/optimized for their personal use case, constraints and quirks

- They have zero interest in being an open source contributor and maintainer. Usually because it's a lot of additional work, sometimes for personal safety reasons (harassment targets etc.) In a workplace it can also mean dealing with an extremely tedious legal process with months of uncertainty.

- They figure anyone who wants something similar can just make it themselves instead of using theirs. If I spent between fifteen minutes and two days to make some software, in 3-6 months someone with fewer skills will probably make it in 5 minutes to a few hours using a more powerful model.

- They may not have full rights to redistribute their source code.

Basically most people - individuals and corporations alike - aren't actually interested in donating to open source and in many cases have anti-incentives to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com