Live data from Hacker News

AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

scottaaronson.blog

221–230 of 263 posts

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#221
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a workaday hacker and what’s UB?

UB = undefined behaviour. You can write code that is valid as in "can be compiled" but outside of C++ standard. It is duty of programmer to not have those, as compiler usually assumes that there's no UB in your code and can do unintuitive things with optimizations. e.g int foo(int8_t x) { x += 120 return x; } int bar(int8_t y) { int z = foo(y); if (y > 8) { do_important_thing(z); } } `do_important_thing` may be optim…

To be pedantic, C has no 8- or 16-bit addition operators, since everything sub-int is scaled up to int to do arithmetic. Therefore, the `x += 120;` line never overflows, since it is actually `x = (int8_t)((int)x + 120);`, and the possible range of `(int)x + 120` is comfortably within the range of expressible ints, while the conversion to int8_t is defined to wrap around when oversized. So there compiler can't optimize out do_important_thing in your example.

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#222
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if they're correct? If they fail a test, you can fix them. If they turn out to be wrong in production you can isolate the example and add it as a test. Producing regexes that pass all current tests but contain a subtle bug satisfy 100% of what programmers are incentivized to do. Producing them very quickly will get you promoted.

You're not wrong, but hopefully someone is at least doing a code review.

[deleted]

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly work with data mining on my personal projects(which is a couple of hours every day), and I'm pretty sure I didn't have to write a single regex since I've started using Copilot. It's hard for me to even imagine how I used to do it before, and how much time I've wasted on stupid mistakes and typos. Now I just write a comment of what I want and an example string. It does the job without me having to modify anyt…

would like to talk about the paintpoints you experienced while doing data preparation and mining

I have an e-mail in my description, you can ask me what you'd like to know there.

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#224

Right on, I couldn’t agree more. We are living during a period of exponential progress. I like AlphaCode’s approach of using language models with search. In the last year I have experimented with mixing language models for NLP with semantic web/linked data tasks, so much simpler than what AlphaCode does, but I have been having fun. I have added examples for this in new additions to two of my books, but if you want a…

We're not seeing exponential rates of progress, in my opinion. We've been on the steep part of an S-curve.

There is no such thing as truly unbounded exponential growth, it's always an S curve

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#225
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am willing take on your bet, as long you agree with my condition...you can't feed it with any of the millions of lines of code previously created by humans you aim to beat...;-)

How would the AI learn then? Humans learn by looking at existing code and gleaning new ideas, and does the AI although it requires much more data. Give the AI as much data as it wants, if it manages to solve something, it means it's a problem worth automating (is this a cat?)

Belter was probably joking. A good logic programming ai could do competitive programming through purely deductive reasoning. I just don’t see good evidence that’ll be possible at a world class level in 10 year.

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it feels like AI is an especially strong instance of this. It seems like a lot of folks just want to pooh pooh any possible outcome. I'm not sure why this is. I presume the amount of hype AI research has been getting for the past 4 decades might be at least part of the reason. I also think AI is terribly named. We are assigning “intelligence” to basically a statistical inference model before philosophers and ps…

It doesn't matter if we call it "intelligent" or "general", the real test is if it is useful. A rose by any other name...

The naming does indeed matter here. The concept of general intelligence is filled with pseudo-science and has a history of racism (see Mismeasure of Man by Stephen J. Gould). Non-linear statistical inference with very large matrices could be assigned intelligence as it is very useful, but it is by no means the same type of intelligence we ascribe to humans (or even dogs for that matter).

If your plant actually looks like a moss you probably shouldn’t call it a rose. (Even though your moss is actually quite amazing).

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#227

As someone who is skeptical, but open minded, about the impact these technologies will have on practical programming I think I'm one of the "people" in "people are complaining..." The article makes some assumptions about what such people think that certainly aren't true for me: 1. That we are unimpressed. I'm gobsmacked. 2. That we don't think these are significant advances. They're obviously huge advances. 3. That w…

You raise an interesting point about the difficulty of code writing versus code review, and I think the point generalizes nicely to many other areas where AI is currently rapidly progressing.

For example, self-driving cars are also currently in this weird place where they're prone to making lots of errors, so a simple task for the human (driving) is replaced with a much more taxing one (keeping an eye on an AI driver and being ready to react at any moment), if we want to do it safely.

Whether any of those applications will be able to progress past that weird space into "no/minimal supervision needed" remains an open question.

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that it is a completely different framework to think about the future. The exponential model is something close than what is behind Ray Kurzweil reasoning about the Great Singularity and how the future will be completely different and we're all going to be gods or immortals or doomed or something dramatic in that vein. The S-Curve is more boring, it means that the future of computing technology might not…

>A bit like airplanes, or space tech you know, have you seen those improving by a 10x factor recently? Is space tech included ironically here? There's been 10x (or more) improvements across dozens of space tech problems in the last couple decades.

Could we send people on the Moon if we wanted? We might but I am honestly not completely sure.

Would that be 1000x, 100x or even 10x easier than 60 years ago? Well, I don't think so.

From my perspective space tech has never quite leaved the prototype phase, for some reason.

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UB = undefined behaviour. You can write code that is valid as in "can be compiled" but outside of C++ standard. It is duty of programmer to not have those, as compiler usually assumes that there's no UB in your code and can do unintuitive things with optimizations. e.g int foo(int8_t x) { x += 120 return x; } int bar(int8_t y) { int z = foo(y); if (y > 8) { do_important_thing(z); } } `do_important_thing` may be optim…

To be pedantic, C has no 8- or 16-bit addition operators, since everything sub-int is scaled up to int to do arithmetic. Therefore, the `x += 120;` line never overflows, since it is actually `x = (int8_t)((int)x + 120);`, and the possible range of `(int)x + 120` is comfortably within the range of expressible ints, while the conversion to int8_t is defined to wrap around when oversized. So there compiler can't optimiz…

This version of the future belongs to the pedants.

Re: AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English

#230
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that reviewing code is much much harder than writing something that works. Hasn't anyone here written what they thought was a smart, compact solution or feature, only to have it ripped to shreds during a code review? I have worked in large decade-old codebases and sometimes the code is truly puzzling. Usually, an old-timer helps out when you run into a block and explains design decisions taken by people who m…

Explainability for an NLP model is well within reach. I predict OpenAI will have something like this in the next 1-2 years

Could you explain the reasoning behind your claim?
Post reply on HN