Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "No Boilerplate" channel.

  1. Bwaahahaha... you just told us that you aren't smart without telling us that you aren't smart. ;-)
    3
  2.  @Tie509  I asked one of the LLMs for the name of a white model in a very well known music video. It came back with "Naomi Campbell". So much for pop culture questions... :-)
    2
  3. Yeah, I tried it. It made one nonsensical statement after another. ;-)
    2
  4. Where do you buy your copium? It's strong stuff. ;-)
    2
  5. @ Anybody's job? Did you ask it to repair your car for you? ;-)
    2
  6. @ In other words: it can't. It also can't install drywall, deliver your new washing machine, clean the carpet or make you less desperate for attention. ;-)
    2
  7. @ The copium is still in your system. Call me when you are sober. ;-)
    2
  8. @linstone I am still waiting for intelligent systems. LLMs are not intelligent. They are basically just guessing the next word and the next word and the one after that. One can emulate bullshitting like that, but not intelligent thought.
    2
  9. That's a very cute description of the introductory computer science class that I was teaching as a TA at my university. First we taught hardware, then we taught low level programming (compiler transformations etc. including assembly language) and then we taught C programming. Having to explain these things rationally step-by-step to students made my a hundred times better programmer than I was before.
    2
  10. You can learn to "code properly" in any language, even Malbolge. If your employer wants you to use Rust, then learn to use it. Do I see a need to learn it if no such requirement exists? No. The problems I have in my daily life can be solved perfectly fine with a combination of Python and C (not even C++). So what do I need another language for?
    2
  11. As far as knowledge handling is concerned AI hasn't improved markedly in the last two years. It still can't handle basic questions and more often than not it hallucinates. What has improved somewhat is image generation, but even that is severely lacking in some aspects. Ask an AI image generator to make a picture of a knot for you. Have a good laugh. ;-)
    2
  12. Another fan fiction video about a language I will never use. ;-)
    1
  13. Some ideas in Rust are good, but some seem total garbage. State handling in types is one of the stranger choices that do not compute with me. We have to be careful with state because state blows up the test space. It doesn't matter if we leave exponentially growing state to the compiler or not... it's still not testable. The underlying assumption behind this feature seems "safe by design". No such thing exists.
    1
  14. It's simply an expression of the fact that it's never the language that is unsafe. It's always the programmer who is unsafe. Every correctly implemented language does exactly what the programmer was asking for. The problem always rests in the fact that what the programmer actually wanted was not what he was asking for. The "bug" originates in the disconnect between what we think will happen and what actually happens. That is a non-solvable problem in Turing complete languages: there is no program that can prove that an arbitrary Turing complete program is correct. Such a prover simply does not satisfy the halt problem.
    1
  15.  @leeroyjenkins0  The Collatz conjecture is waiting for your genius. ;-)
    1
  16.  @leeroyjenkins0  You are simply working on the wrong level of existence here. Software engineering is engineering. It's not math. The goal is not to make perfect software. The goal is to make USEFUL software ON TIME and ON BUDGET. That's not something that requires special languages and provers. It requires experienced software engineers.
    1
  17. Anybody who gives you an example of their language being faster than C is cheating you. They are simply comparing poorly written C code with a well written version in their language of choice.
    1
  18.  @afjelidfjssaf  What you are comparing are COMPILER OPTIMIZATIONS, not languages. C is basically refined macro assembly language. It doesn't define all that many operations that do not already exist as native machine code instructions on most modern CPUs in one form or another. It does, of course, take care of memory allocation for you and it gives you a little bit of namespaces (an array or struct are, at the end of the day, just a name space for an allocated chunk of memory). Other languages are doing a lot more in that department, but that comes at a high cost: you lose access to the memory layout, which is not a good thing for performance and security purposes. No, no language can beat assembly, but even relatively primitive compilers can beat most programmers. That's a limitation of programmers, it's not a particularly amazing feature of compilers. I will give you a hint for the future: AI code generation will bypass the structured language level altogether. There is absolutely no need to generate human readable code for AI. It can output machine code directly just as easily. I would go even one step further: we may see AI that will generate microcode and programmable hardware maps directly. Welcome to the human-less future. ;-)
    1
  19. Software is generally "licensed". If you were to "sell" software, that would mean you would sell the source code and whatever else is required to produce the final software that is being "licensed" to the user. This is a quirky detail of the law. It also applies to many other things today. Drugs, for instance, are almost always being licensed unless there is a wholesale M&A of the inventor company by a second, usually larger, company. That is not the problem. A license is good enough for most users.
    1
  20. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. A hammer is very useful as long as I don't overestimate it. You can replace LLM in that sentence with any tool and it stays just as valid, yet completely void of any actual meaning.
    1
  21. It was made by an LLM. ;-)
    1
  22.  @potatomaaan1757  So you are saying that it doesn't have a garbage collector and it doesn't need a garbage collector because it has two of them. ;-)
    1
  23. So you basically did everything wrong that one can do wrong and you are proud of it. OK... :-)
    1
  24.  @notNajimi  It was a joke. Please reply with "Except that it's not." :-)
    1
  25. Yes, it's programmer logic. In reality cats have names. Some listen to them, some do not. :-)
    1
  26. There are fundamental differences in languages that can compile statically and languages that do not. JIT is not an implementation feature. It's a necessity.
    1
  27. Yes, he said a lot of nonsense, not just about cats. ;-)
    1
  28.  @TheCopperbolt  So you don't know anything about cats, either. OK. So what, though? ;-)
    1
  29. You need to get some help with that paranoia.
    1
  30. There are no inventors here. There is only a pipeline of tech slaves that keep feeding ever mode data into a failed computational model. Yes, LLMs are extremely good at hallucinating. But they are not good at anything else.
    1
  31. What about it? That's the most simple way to make a program that will break in the hand of a user in three minutes flat. The second most simple way is to implement O(n) problems with O(n^2) algorithms. ;-)
    1
  32. What most architects call "invalid state" is often a way for a user to implement a user workaround for bugs. You aren't going to make anybody happy by restricting state to only state YOU deem safe. It's going to be the other way around. Of course a security researcher will tell you differently, but that's because their entire life is about breaking a system, while the entire life of a regular user is about making a broken system work somewhat.
    1