How do we know it's actually correct?
By using it.
It works == it's correct?
Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
11–20 of 92 posts
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#12> But, it works, and the world now has a free software RAR implementation. Does it? How are you legally intending to use copyright to license this machine output? How would you know it's not encumbered in any way?
Really unsure why this is getting downvoted, to my understanding this is a massive, unsettled concern.
It wasn't even a disasm/pseudocode to formal spec flow, and then a separate human implementation. The same human has been in the loop throughout, and large parts of it were generated directly.
It's basically guaranteed tainted.
Edit: I should have skimmed a bit more patiently, there was in fact no "disasm/pseudocode + the human getting tainted" part to this apparently.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#13Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
By using it.
It works == it's correct?
Yes? What do you think fuzzing, unit testing, integration testing is for? It's an empirical evaluation of correctness. Literally just try and see.
For actual correctness verification in the strong sense, you'd need to start from a specification written in a formal language so that it's machine checkable, which if I had to guess not even win.rar GmbH has.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works == it's correct?
This is Rust we're talking about. It doesn't even need to work; as long as it compiles, it's correct.
use std::fs::File;
use std::io::prelude::*;
fn main() -> std::io::Result {
let mut file = File::create("content.txt")?;
file.write_all(b"3!")?;
Ok(())
}Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works == it's correct?
Yes? What do you think fuzzing, unit testing, integration testing is for? It's an empirical evaluation of correctness. Literally just try and see. For actual correctness verification in the strong sense, you'd need to start from a specification written in a formal language so that it's machine checkable, which if I had to guess not even win.rar GmbH has.
I hope the developers of, say, the brakes in my car don't interpret 'software correctness' the way you do.
Added, later: hey you changed your comment, added a whole paragraph.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#17Would it really take 5 years to develop rare compress and decompression that seems an extreme overestimate in time. I don't know of the compressor decompression but that seems really high
Yeah, sounds closer to a 5 week thing, if you know what you're doing.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? What do you think fuzzing, unit testing, integration testing is for? It's an empirical evaluation of correctness. Literally just try and see. For actual correctness verification in the strong sense, you'd need to start from a specification written in a formal language so that it's machine checkable, which if I had to guess not even win.rar GmbH has.
I hope the developers of, say, the brakes in my car don't interpret 'software correctness' the way you do. Added, later: hey you changed your comment, added a whole paragraph.
[deleted]
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#19> But, it works, and the world now has a free software RAR implementation. Does it? How are you legally intending to use copyright to license this machine output? How would you know it's not encumbered in any way?
Really unsure why this is getting downvoted, to my understanding this is a massive, unsettled concern. It wasn't even a disasm/pseudocode to formal spec flow, and then a separate human implementation. The same human has been in the loop throughout, and large parts of it were generated directly. It's basically guaranteed tainted. Edit: I should have skimmed a bit more patiently, there was in fact no "disasm/pseudocode…
The human wasn't looking at the copyrighted code and was giving high level steering instructions. If you look at the spec generated it doesn't look like a derivative work of the copyrighted material. The program was generated from the spec. It seems mostly fine from my perspective.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes? What do you think fuzzing, unit testing, integration testing is for? It's an empirical evaluation of correctness. Literally just try and see. For actual correctness verification in the strong sense, you'd need to start from a specification written in a formal language so that it's machine checkable, which if I had to guess not even win.rar GmbH has.
I hope the developers of, say, the brakes in my car don't interpret 'software correctness' the way you do. Added, later: hey you changed your comment, added a whole paragraph.
I hope the brakes in my car don't need developers