creata

> we're hierarchical monkeys at the core

How could you ever think otherwise?

Fwiw the guy you're replying to is trying to replicate 1:1 the entire Adobe creative suite (and now Microsoft Office?) with the help of AI.

Why would there be a rug pull? Open models do seem to be giving companies like OpenAI and Anthropic some decent-ish competition, so if they try to increase prices too much then people can just leave them.

This "gap in understanding" doesn't seem like a situation that would last for very long, because AI companies have every incentive to market the shit out of the capabilities of their models to the public. And yet they don't - why?

Or they tell themselves the usual stuff - if they didn't do it then someone else would, technological progress is inevitable, etc.

> but that's not the case for concurrency

Is that the case because it's easy to avoid concurrency issues, or because people are afraid of even trying to introduce concurrency into their program due to those issues? Because if it's the latter, then trying to support some amount of safe concurrency makes sense.

I'm not part of "the Rust community". I'm not sure why you have to be so inflammatory.

Those are bullet points.

* Deadlocks, memory leaks, infinite loops, etc. are all the sort of risks that Rust doesn't try to protect from. In my opinion it's okay to talk about "fearless concurrency" despite deadlocks in the same way it's okay to call Rust memory-safe despite memory leaks.

* Rust's type system also allows you to make safe interfaces like Rayon that do genuinely allow for "fearless" concurrency in a way that I don't really see in other general-purpose languages.

> more than for most other ecosystems, there are many different implementations with their own implementations and quirks.

Is that the reason? I thought it was primarily because C stupidly* makes a ton of platform-specific things more convenient than the platform-independent equivalent - the width of integer types, locales, etc., all vary by platform, and it's easy to accidentally depend on them.

* Maybe it wasn't stupid at the time when C was developed, but it's a bad choice now.

That's interesting - to me C is delightfully austere. Most other languages, even much younger languages like Rust, spiral in complexity as they mature. But C hasn't grown much more complex since C99. How many other (mainstream) languages can say that?

As fun as it is, 1[c] will be "marked obsolete" in C29 according to Wikipedia.

Blog about it, or ask Codex to blog about it.

In case anyone hasn't seen it, the story behind this couple is interesting:

https://www.cureffi.org/about/

> Long term, stronger models than what OpenAI used will be available to everyone.

Strong and cheap enough to make solving these problems by this approach less than a million-dollar venture?

(Pedantry: We already knew that integer multiplication, at least, was O(n log n). which is subquadratic.)

I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted you, but:

1. In OpenAI's case, they dumped 1.8 GiB of Lean proofs on the world. I don't think they've done anything ethically wrong by doing that, but it's the exact opposite of "commit by commit". In fact, I'd say human mathematics has been much closer to "commit by commit", usually using smaller results as stepping stones.

2. You can have "commit by commit" without formal provers like Lean. Just keep your text in a Git repo.

He's probably talking about understanding the structure of the Lean proof, which is 233,891 lines of Lean (including blank lines).

Well, you don't necessarily need to read the proof, but the proof is useless if you don't read the specification.

> the rest of us will enjoy seeing humans and AIs build on the results.

That would be nice, but the rest of the world wasn't interested in the results before and they won't be interested after.

I wonder what this means long term. Maybe mathematicians will keep plodding on as usual except sporadically when an AI company need a marketing boost so they spend millions of dollars to dunk on them. Because the mathematicians sure don't have that kind of money.

Your point would be stronger with links to such discussion.

I think this post's arguments are mostly flawed, but without getting into that, my problem with "AI" is that it's just fundamentally antisocial - it's built on using the work of billions of people in a way that they would not like it being used.* The defense is always "if you put it on the Internet, then you should be okay with people using it however they want", but that's just such a douchey defense, and the result is a world where fewer people want to share things on the Internet.

But that ship seems to have sailed. Anyway, it's cute that the author writes as if AI companies are only automating the "typing code" part and not the "delivering valuable software" part. They will automate everything that they can. Whatever special understanding or ability you think you have that the machine lacks, if it leads you to any amount of success, will be hoovered up into the machine for easy replication by anyone. That's why there's so much money in this - people aren't investing trillions so that you can type less/no code.

* There are valid defenses for using work against the author's wishes - e.g., a racist shouldn't be able to stop people of other races from viewing their work. I just think these particular defenses are shit.

Did the Bun rewrite work? I'm seeing some absolutely terrifying bugs in the GitHub issues, although for all I know they were in the old code, too.

Maybe they'll go streaming-only, but I'd at least wait until the Switch 2 is hacked before making that prediction.

It's easy for me to imagine a world where this stays the same.

I don't imagine that many of their customers are fans of taking unnecessary risks to save what isn't much money for most of them.

> Now, I just vibe-slopped a player app with only the features I want and nothing else.

Out of curiosity, how much did that cost?

> Honestly, if this topples Adobe from its unearned throne then fantastic.

Why is their throne unearned? They created and continue to maintain their software, which is, as you said, still considered the gold standard.

Software... doesn't have to be secure?

I have to admit, I really am having a hard time realizing that.

> Agents can: Make pixel perfect clone of Slack or Jira with SQLite or ejabberd behind.

If it's that easy, then maybe you can do it and give the world a free and better-than-Zulip alternative to Slack?

Not sure how it's new. Torvalds and plenty like him have been more abrasive for much longer.

I'm not the person you asked, but I see them both as languages that try to get a lot of mileage out of a few features. Both of them try to have small cores, instead of taking a "maximalist" approach like C++.

I don't think you're wrong overall, and it jives with tripleee's reply, but I don't think wanting end-user software to be less buggy than it currently is is asking for "flawless" software.