Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

raymyers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 862 posts

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#841

Post by goofy_lemur »

All right there is so much hate for this rust rewrite, but I'm going to tell everybody that people are way way underestimating how sucky the Zig codebase was.

Basically all the time people were having horrid memory leaks and stuff that they couldn't even figure out.

So yeah, I get it, people are frustrated, but stop pretending Bun was this battle tested mature thing. It was a prototype, and still is.

Switching it to Rust is understandable since they just couldn't fix the memory leaks. It was and still is in beta, because anything with memory leaks is beta.

So yeah, I understand the concern but nobody would ever use it in production anyways for a server now because of the leaks so treat it like what it is - beta software and a cool experiment.

Thanks all!

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#842

Post by AndyKelley »

mtlynch wrote: post #143
mi_lk wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The post claims they were fuzzing their Zig code, while during our calls the whole Bun team told us that they were not fuzzing anything If you read the post again this sentence is not removed and Sumner did not refute that

Right, that part is not in dispute. If Sumner says today, "We do X," then Kelley can say, "Nine months ago, Sumner did not do X," and both can be correct. What Kelley can't do is say, "It's an outright fabrication that Sumner does X today," based on an observation from nine months ago.

Now you've misquoted me. Actual quote[1] is: "This appears to be an outright fabrication."

To quote yourself[2], "The honest thing to do is acknowledge that you were mistaken and apologize for the false accusation."

Are you going to do that for me now?

I don't expect you to, because I don't think you are being dishonest. I think you are earnestly trying to untangle the facts from two parties for whom you have no bias one way or the other, which is commendable.

Like you, I am an individual attempting to paint an accurate picture of reality for my readers.

Anthropic, on the other hand, is not an individual nor trying to be accurate. They are doing exactly as they are supposed to: maximizing value for shareholders. To do this, they need to make this rewrite appear successful, so they need to retcon this idea that they were doing good engineering practices in their zig codebase the whole time, including fuzzing, even though that is not the case.

[1]: https://github.com/andrewrk/andrewkelley.me/blob/c39f868e578...

[2]: https://mastodon.social/@michael@m.mtlynch.io/11689618811296...

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#843

Post by JuniperMesos »

LtWorf wrote: post #839
slopinthebag wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what, rewriting an open source project in a new language? It’s insane that in 2026 this is seen as controversial.

No, for repeatedly using such low quality rewrites as marketing for your upcoming IPO, to convince people to evaluate your company more. It's insane that in 2026 we are still falling for these tricks really.

Why shouldn't people evaluate Anthropic more after seeing this technical achievement using their software product?

Seriously, let's say that every single instance of people using Anthropic LLMs to translate code in an open-source software project from one language to another was deliberately orchestrated by Anthropic's marketing department, with the aim of increasing their stock price at IPO. Even if this were true, why specifically would that be bad? Why would that be some kind of offense that Anthropic as a company committed, that they would need to be held accountable for?

If you think that Anthropic's stock price will be overvalued at its IPO because too many other investors are looking at uses of Anthropic LLMs to translate code in this way, drawing a flawed conclusion from them, and then using that flawed conclusion to bid up the price of Anthropic stock, then you can trade against them in the market. Short Anthropic's stock. If you're not sure enough about this thesis to actually make this trade, then why should anyone take you seriously when you claim that this is some kind of "trick" on Anthropic's part?

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#844

Post by handoflixue »

oblio wrote: post #793
handoflixue wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coders needing compilers is a hit on coding because it means coding can't be extended a lot? I'm just not following the logic at all. We build vastly more ambitious software today than we did in the 80s

That's an intentionally obtuse comment. Compilers are widely available as open source software not coming from companies that need to justify a $1tn valuation ASAP for their development of LLMs. Also the LLM = compiler comparison is generally just ridiculous. Their complexity, both internal and in usage for coding are multiple orders of magnitude apart.

Oh yeah, nothing complex about a compiler, that only takes 4 years of college to understand. That's soooo much simpler than typing "make me a Tetris clone".

Literally no one has 4 years of experience with LLMs, because they haven't existed for four years. Today's experts are tomorrow's college graduates.

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#845

Post by fragmede »

handoflixue wrote: post #844
oblio wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an intentionally obtuse comment. Compilers are widely available as open source software not coming from companies that need to justify a $1tn valuation ASAP for their development of LLMs. Also the LLM = compiler comparison is generally just ridiculous. Their complexity, both internal and in usage for coding are multiple orders of magnitude apart.

Oh yeah, nothing complex about a compiler, that only takes 4 years of college to understand. That's soooo much simpler than typing "make me a Tetris clone". Literally no one has 4 years of experience with LLMs, because they haven't existed for four years. Today's experts are tomorrow's college graduates.

ChatGPT was released November 30, 2022. GPT-2, before that. So we're right around 4 years.

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#846

Post by ModernMech »

AndyKelley wrote: post #842
mtlynch wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that part is not in dispute. If Sumner says today, "We do X," then Kelley can say, "Nine months ago, Sumner did not do X," and both can be correct. What Kelley can't do is say, "It's an outright fabrication that Sumner does X today," based on an observation from nine months ago.

Now you've misquoted me. Actual quote[1] is: "This appears to be an outright fabrication." To quote yourself[2], "The honest thing to do is acknowledge that you were mistaken and apologize for the false accusation." Are you going to do that for me now? I don't expect you to, because I don't think you are being dishonest. I think you are earnestly trying to untangle the facts from two parties for whom you have no bias…

Dude just stop. This has been embarrassing and damaging enough to your reputation, you should just give it a rest for now. Your friends have made you self-aware enough to realize you have unprocessed emotions about this — process them. Best to get out of the comment section, and your head. The saying is if you’re explaining you’re losing. I’m not a fan of Bun or Jarred but of your Zig work. Stick to that, it’s where you serve the community best. In the future, just present the verifiable facts and you’ll be okay.

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#847

Post by zogrodea »

nivethan wrote: post #335
ramses0 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuben-Eki! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37169679

thanks for that link, I've thought that friction was helpful but this gives me a word and a concept to look at.

Happy to learn about the concept today. It resonates with me.

I sometimes think of something Kant wrote, about how friction (hardship, etc.) elevates us.

In Kant's own words:

"Without those in themselves unamiable characteristics of unsociability from whence opposition springs-characteristics each man must find in his own selfish pretensions-all talents would remain hidden, unborn in an Arcadian shepherd’s life, with all its concord, contentment, and mutual affection. Men, good-natured as the sheep they herd, would hardly reach a higher worth than their beasts; they would not fill the empty place in creation by achieving their end, which is rational nature. Thanks be to Nature, then, for the incompatibility, for heartless competitive vanity, for the insatiable desire to possess and to rule! Without them, all the excellent natural capacities of humanity would forever sleep, undeveloped. Man wishes concord; but Nature knows better what is good for the race; she wills discord. He wishes to live comfortably and pleasantly; Nature wills that he should be plunged from sloth and passive contentment into labor and trouble, in order that he may find means of extricating himself from them. The natural urges to this, the sources of unsociableness and mutual opposition from which so many evils arise, drive men to new exertions of their forces and thus to the manifold development of their capacities. They thereby perhaps show the ordering of a wise Creator and not the hand of an evil spirit, who bungled in his great work or spoiled it out of envy."

See the section titled "FOURTH THESIS" at the following link if interested.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Idea_for_a_Universal_History_...

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#848

Post by preg_match »

draw_down wrote: post #670
colinsane wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bigger problem with the post is that it talks out of both ends of the mouth: it’s clearly meant as a personal attack, but also insists that it isn’t. my instinct is to step up and defend Andrew: to say that truly, he has strong opinions -- which is to say he _cares_ about doing things right -- but that he's more patient and accommodating than you're judging him to be from this 10,000ft view. that's kinda weird:…

I think it's weird to say crap like "So and so was a stinky manager" and then be like it's not a personal attack! I liked Zed Shaw. I liked Ted Unangst. They made solid technical points and they were kinda mean about it. They didn't act like butter wouldn't melt in their mouths at the same time.

I would argue your performance as a manager is not a personal attack, it's a professional attack. Calling someone a bad doctor because they routinely botch surgeries isn't a personal attack either. They might be a really good person, but they need to put down the scalpel.

Also, none of this is "new" or anything. Jarred openly bragged about overworking his people. Which, okay, fine, maybe that's a philosophy. But then you can't act like essentially saying your own words back at you is somehow an attack. It's just not.

People need to be more careful and understand that no, actually, you DO NOT own your perception. Your actions and words both curate your perception and, so sorry, you can't necessarily change it. It's not yours, it's ours.

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#849

Post by preg_match »

iamflimflam1 wrote: post #487
laserbeam wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I'm glad he stayed honest to himself instead and didn't have a PR team ghostwrite his thoughts. If there's one thing I learned in this debacle is "I should spend 1-2 days and send to a close friend before hitting publish on a firey reply." The way Andrew rephrased the closing section is the kind of thing I should publish on the first edit in similar scenarios.

Early on in my career I wrote a highly critical email - I asked a coworker for his opinion before I sent. He said “there’s just one thing that would improve this” and hit the delete button. That intervention saved me, and everyone I was working with, from a lot of unnecessary stress. Venting is great - get it out of your system. Then take a deep breath, go for a walk, and then decide what to do.

The problem is if everyone does this then nothing gets done and everything burns down and everyone dies. Okay, a little hyperbolic.

But assholes know how to get things done, they just do. If everyone becomes a bystander, then 100% of all decisions will be made by the absolute bottom of the barrel of humanity. I'm talking sub-human morally inept fundamentally evil people.

We're already kinda there, and maybe my phrasing here is harsh, but it's true. We've all seen what happens when you let the mad king be mad. It might be pleasant and peaceful for a while, but ultimately it is "your problem". Eventually the madness touches YOU, and now what?

Re: Zig Creator Calls Spade a Spade, Anthropic Blows Smoke

#850

Post by preg_match »

guardiangod wrote: post #527
unknownfuture wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely not true. Differently languages have greater or lesser representation in the training sets. You see a similar bias toward specific libraries within a given ecosystem, so much so that I worry about AI created technical monocultures as AI generated code converges to specific languages, packages, etc. The LLM companies have truly astounding power to now steer the direction of the entire industry. It sh…

Rust does not have a bigger training set than say Python/JS/TypeScript/C++ .

Yes but it goes deeper than just corpus, because not all programming languages are created equal. More statically enforced language perform better with AI because the tooling catches more bugs earlier. Highly dynamic languages like JS are very poor rewrite targets, despite being popular, because you essentially have to live in the debugger and employ maximum TDD to make it work reliably. And AI doesn't do that.

Consider just having a typechecker. That alone eliminates a whole class of bugs and unit tests, which means your remaining unit tests check more logic. I've seen JS projects with high test coverage that cover essentially zero logic, only type checking class things. And nobody even knows it, really. But when your tests are just "okay pass an empty array. Now an empty string. This should fail, great. Now pass an array with the wrong elements..." you're not testing anything. You're probing the type system, which many languages do automatically and perfectly.

Post reply on HN