That is exactly what you want to evaluate the thechnology. Not make a buggy commit into softwared not used by nobody and reviewed by an intern. But actually review it by domain professionals, in real world very well-tested project. So they could make an informed decision on where it lacks in capabilities and what needs to be fixed before they try it again.
I doubt that anyone expected to merge any of these PRs. Question is - can the machine solve minor (but non-trivial) issues listed on github in an efficient way with minimal guidance. Current answer is no.
Also, _if_ anything was to be merged, dotnet is dogfooded extensively at Microsoft, so bugs in it are much more likely to be noticed and fixed before you get a stable release on your plate.
> Not make a buggy commit into software not used by nobody and reviewed by an intern.
If it can't even make a decent commit into software nobody uses, how can it ever do it for something even more complex?
And no, you don't need to review it with an intern...
> can the machine solve minor (but non-trivial) issues listed on github in an efficient way with minimal guidance
I'm sorry but the only way this is even a question is if you never used AI in the real world.
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would tell you immediately: it cannot.
You can't even keep it "sane" in a small conversation, let alone using tons of context to accomplish non-trivial tasks.
This is Stephen Toub, who is the lead of many important .NET projects. I don't think he is worried about losing job anytime soon.
I think, we should not read too much into it. He is honestly exploring how much this tool can help him to resolve trivial issues. Maybe he was asked to do so by some of his bosses, but unlikely to fear the tool replacing him in the near future.
They don’t have any problem firing experienced devs for no reason. Including on the .NET team (most of the .NET Android dev team was laid off recently).
I can definitely believe that companies will start (or have already started) using "Enthusiasm about AI" as justification for a hire/promote/reprimand/fire decision. Adherence to the Church Of AI has become this weird purity test throughout the software industry!
I love the fact that they seem to be asking it to do simple things because ”AI can do the simple boring things for us so we can focus on the important problems” and then it floods them with so many meaningless mumbo jumbo that they could have probably done the simple thing in a fraction of the time they take to keep correcting it continuously.
It is called experimentation. That is how people evaluate new technology. By trying to do small things with it first. And if it doesn't work well - retrying later, once bigger issues are fixed.
Hot take: CPython is not an important project for Microsoft, and it is not lead by them. The faster CPython project had questionable acheivement on top of that.
Half of Microsoft (especially server-side) still runs on dotnet. And there are no real contributors outside of microsoft. So it is a vital project.
They also laid off one of the veteran TypeScript developers. TypeScript is definitely an important project for Microsoft, and a lot of code there is written in it.
Anyone not showing open AI enthusiasm at that level will absolutely be fired. Anyone speaking for MS will have to be openly enthusiastic or silent on the topic by now.
> A 15,000-line proof is going to have a mistake somewhere.
If this proof is formal, than it is not going to. That is why writing formal proofs is such a PITA, you actually have to specify every little detail, or it doesn't work at all.
> Verifying that those 15,000 lines do what they do doesn't give me much more confidence than thorough unit testing would.
It actually does. Programs written in statically typed languages (with reasonably strong type systems) empirically have less errors than the ones written in dynamically typed languages. Formal verification as done by F* is like static typing on (a lot of) steroids. And HACL has unit tests among other things.
I agree that absence of tests isn't great, and is very common with many C-based projects. But the rest of your comments reads like "ooh, it's C, disgusting!". I hope, I'm wrong.
Thank you. These 2 are well-known, as well as plenty others. But I wanted to see answer from the author of the comment to which I replied. Apart from tests (of which both sqlite and curl have plenty, and that is obviously good), I don't see any reasonable difference in sqlite or curl code in aspects which were mentioned in their comment (namely, style and ownership). I'd like to see what they think is reasonable C code.
It is also a statically linked Linux distribution. But it's core idea is reproducible nix-style builds (including installing as many different versions/build configurations of any package), but with less pl fuff (no fancy funcional language - just some ugly jinja2/shell style build descriptions; which in practice work amazingly well, because underlying package/dependency model is very solid - https://stal-ix.github.io/IX.html).
It is very opionated (just see this - https://stal-ix.github.io/STALIX.html), and a bit rough, but I was able to run it in VMs sucessfully. It would be amazing if it stabilizes one day.
Did you notice that you just devided kids in Loudoun and Baltimore in 2 groups, giving them as examples of different environments? You do not object to premise, only to granularity of defining environment geographically.
> You do not object to premise, only to granularity of defining environment geographically.
Correct. I just picked those two because of stark differences of two well known areas close to each other. But it can go down to even neighborhood, or even street in said neighborhood.
Sorry if my rambling seems confusing. I'm not against the idea that environment affects children. I'm against broad brush stroke categorization about how different countries behave.
Or even one individual on different days. It should be all chaos and noise and yet it's not because these "general" numbers get translated to a realistic "it's more/less likely" not "it's guaranteed".
You're arguing against comparisons you don't like, or feel make you look worse than others. In other words you want to get to arbitrarily define the brush width presumably based on where you feel you sit in the comparison.
> I'm against broad brush stroke categorization about how different countries behave.
Ok - pick any conservative country (say India or Indonesia). Now tell me that the chances of an average Indonesian woman wearing a bikini to a beach (pretty normal in most Western countries) is same as an average French woman?
Or for a less gender-charged example, chances of an average Saudi eating Pork vs an average American.
>Ok - pick any conservative country (say India or Indonesia). Now tell me that the chances of an average Indonesian woman wearing a bikini to a beach (pretty normal in most Western countries) is same as an average French woman?
The strongest predictor for both the French and the Indonesian is almost certainly going to be the individuals physique and and the second is probably going to be the country and prevailing culture in which the beach is located (i.e. what everyone else is wearing).
This kind of illustrates the point you're trying to disagree with. You can't just look at some sort of demographic based average and shoot from the hip and expect to hit anything.
> The strongest predictor for both the French and the Indonesian is almost certainly going to be the individuals physique
I take it that you have either never been to a beach or the one you have been to is only open to athletes and supermodels.
> the second is probably going to be the country and prevailing culture in which the beach is located (i.e. what everyone else is wearing)
So you haven't had the chance of seeing Indonesian woman wearing full headgear and clothes covering their body having fun at a beach far away from Indonesia? Not joking, they were having a genuinely good time - from direct experience.
The world is much bigger and has far greater variety of people, customs and norms than you can imagine.
>I take it that you have either never been to a beach or the one you have been to is only open to athletes and supermodels.
Have you been to the beach in the last 10yr. All manner of 1-pc swimsuits are arguably the default style for women.
>So you haven't had the chance of seeing Indonesian woman wearing full headgear and clothes covering their body having fun at a beach far away from Indonesia? Not joking, they were having a genuinely good time - from direct experience.
My mistake, I mixed up Indonesia and the Phillipines in my mind. No surprise muslim women will not be wearing bikinis. But the Westerners will also be far more modest in a setting where that is the prevailing default so....
>The world is much bigger and has far greater variety of people, customs and norms than you can imagine.
If looking down one's nose like that is what it takes to be cultured I'm glad I'm not.
This is so wrong that it I don't even know where to start countering it. The average Indian woman will not ever wear a bikini at all, most wouldn't even wear one in a women only swimming pool let alone a mixed beach.
Sabotaging any infrastracture harms people. Transitioning to clean energy can be (and is being) sped up by actual peaceful actions.
The second talk is especially ridiculous when the speaker suggests to sabotage datacenters, because they use a lot of resources. I guess it is part of the "degrowth" ideology, which I find deeply flawed.
> Sabotaging any infrastracture harms people. Transitioning to clean energy can be (and is being) sped up by actual peaceful actions.
It's entirely arbitrary to propose that only "peaceful" (an inherently relative term depending on your personal belief system) action can speed this up, while non-peaceful action cannot, that this property is a necessary requirement.
Unless of course your definition of "peaceful" is "thing that speeds up this transition". Would be pretty different from the average definition of the word, though.
They didn't say anything about peacefulness being a requirement to speeding up a transition to clean energy.
They also didn't say that it's the peacefulness aspect of the ongoing peaceful changes that is accelerating transition.
You're trying to outreason an opinion, and not only that, but you're also attempting to do so by putting words into their mouth. Please reconsider.
Debating the unspecified nature of a word isn't exactly the most productive thing in the world either. The vast, vast majority of natural language is that way. Kind of a pivotal feature of natural languages really.
I think it's very reasonable to take "Sabotaging any infrastructure harms people. Transitioning to clean energy can be (and is being) sped up by actual peaceful actions." as arguing for the sole usage of peaceful actions. If you feel that's an unfair take, feel free to clarify, but that interpretation seems pretty average.
> It's entirely arbitrary to propose that only "peaceful" (an inherently relative term depending on your personal belief system) action can speed this up, while non-peaceful action cannot, that this property is a necessary requirement.
Do a mental experiment, flip around the sides. Is it OK to propose for oil executives to sabotage the lives of ecological activists with violence? Perhaps, burn their houses, deface the headquarters, that kind of thing?
What is the point of this experiment? Is it OK to propose for Ukrainians to sabotage the lives of Russian generals?
I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK". Could you explain directly what your PoV is instead? If it is that "It's OK if Ukrainians take such actions against Russian generals, but not if Tuvaluans/___ take them against oil executives", then why?
To see if your methods will actually result in anything good.
> Is it OK to propose for Ukrainians to sabotage the lives of Russian generals?
Of course. Top military personnel are a valid target in a war.
> I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK".
Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.
Violence is defensible only as a response to violence.
If I turn up with a bulldozer and destroy your house, is that violence?
How about if I flood your entire state/region permanently, both destroying your living, as well as that of your friends and families, as well as forcing you to relocate to a region you have nothing in common with?
Someone throwing a punch in your face is violence. Is that more acceptable to counter with violence than the previous scenario? I haven't met a single person who genuinely believes that.
"violence" can express itself in many ways.
> Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.
Terrorism is a meaningless tern used to appeal to emotion. One's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Nearly every colonizer was overthrown by such a group. In many places, slavery was overturned by such groups.
Peaceful actions also harm people. Any transition to clean energy harms at least some people (for example executives and share holders of oil companies). The more important question is if the benefit outweighs the harm, and if the harm stays below some threshold of "unjustifiable harm".
I don't see how infrastructure is somehow special in this.
To that end, the obvious answer to the person in that opening ceremony is "if people had further picture of the impact" [1].
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. The way they can make people sympathize with their intents of sabotage is by providing a justification, and enabling people to provide themselves one of their own. Otherwise, people will work with what they have, and what they have is mostly just their moral standards.
Evidently, the thread starter's moral standards do not condone this. Mine don't either. The way one can change this is by providing more information that would enable us to change our minds. This isn't really what's happening so far (although neither sides are communicating in a way that would make an open ended discussion of this super viable).
[1] and have that picture be such that it supports their conclusion. Note how this doesn't mean that picture must be:
- truthful
- balanced
- reasonable
And provided all parties are aware of this, they'll be more critical and suspecting of the other. For good reasons, I'd say.
It is a bit reductionist, but so is "don't harm infrastructure". Infrastructure can be harmful, just like anything else.
And in the end most criticisms about consequentialism are either about how to retroactively declare something moral or immoral (which is irrelevant for deciding the best path now without future knowledge) or are qualms with one particular way of weighing harm vs benefit. I'm perfectly fine with considering third order effects in the calculation, and an action that saves a life but errodes society is not necessarily "good" since the ultimate harm may outweigh the benefit. In fact it's this very kind of reasoning about higher-order-effects that would lead you to the conclusion that sabotage could be justified in some cases
No, it cant. These 2 are semantically not eqivalent, because in async version caller of f1() is resumed only once fetch has completed. In your callback version it will be resumed immediately.
Also think how this should be translated:
function f1() {
x = await fetch('something');
return x + 1;
}
It's not about syntax. There is a huge difference in implementation and semantics between stackful coroutines (which go uses) and stackless coroutines (which most languages with async/await use).
For all practical purposes goroutines behave as separate threads with blocking calls. The fact that they are multiplexed on a few system threads is an implementation detail.
Otherwise you could say that using system threads directly is also asynchrnous programming. After all, your thread gets suspended on system calls (including synchronization primitives) and is resumed upon their completion.
I don't think there is a huge difference: you can implement stackful coroutines via heap allocated frames a-la scheme that look a lot like separately suspended stackless coroutines. Conversely you can combine chains of stackless coroutines waiting on each other in a single object (I think rust is for example capable of this in principle).
Semantically the biggest difference is that stackless coroutines typically require yield points to be marked syntactically in code.
> The community would like to get absolute power so it can just make decisions about military sponsorships beforehand.
There is no such thing as "community" when talking about power. Certain people will have power. Maybe wider community agrees with them. If there is an established way to transfer this power (and install a different governance structure), then they can use it. If there is no such way, they may ask edolstra to step down, but surely he is not obliged to do so.
Historically, forking was a way for open source communities to diverge when they had incompatible values. There are plenty of examples of successful forks, preferred by community.
A teeny little bit of me thinks, that people who are not happy with current leadership do not want to fork the project because they are not sure that wider community cares enough to follow them.
I agree that there is not one community. The community is split in factions. One faction likes to talk about themselves as "the community", but in practise they only speak for themselves. Since there is no elected leader, it is all informal and anarchic.
I doubt that anyone expected to merge any of these PRs. Question is - can the machine solve minor (but non-trivial) issues listed on github in an efficient way with minimal guidance. Current answer is no.
Also, _if_ anything was to be merged, dotnet is dogfooded extensively at Microsoft, so bugs in it are much more likely to be noticed and fixed before you get a stable release on your plate.