Live data from Hacker News

AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

deepmind.google

101–110 of 298 posts

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#101
post #95
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not read this linked article, but your comment made me recall a discussion about a speed up of CUDA kernels presented by Sakana AI Labs. The researcher Ravid Shwartz Ziv at NYU posted about it on LinkedIn [1], and here is the Twitter post of interest [2] """ Yesterday's news about Sakana AI Labs provided an important lesson for all of us working with AI agents. Their announcement of an AI system that could sup…

lmao this is exactly the kind of stuff I always see from Claude. It’s like adding a Skip() to a test and declaring it works now. “Well it’s a lot faster, I met the criteria of my TODOs cya” I’ve seen it so much I kinda doubt it was “inadvertent” because they’re like seemingly intentional about their laziness, and will gaslight you about it too.

“I am a vibe coder, it is your job to check the results”

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#102
post #92

This is great. But how incremental are these advancements? I picked one at random (B.2 -- the second autocorrelation inequality). Then, I looked up the paper that produced the previous state of the art ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1379 ). It turns out that the authors had themselves found the upper bound by performing a numerical search using "Mathematica 6" (p.4). Not only did the authors consider this as a secondar…

Merely from your telling, it seems it is no longer "not worth the effort", as "the effort" has been reduced drastically. This is itself significant.

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#103
post #92

This is great. But how incremental are these advancements? I picked one at random (B.2 -- the second autocorrelation inequality). Then, I looked up the paper that produced the previous state of the art ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1379 ). It turns out that the authors had themselves found the upper bound by performing a numerical search using "Mathematica 6" (p.4). Not only did the authors consider this as a secondar…

not worth the time for a human, but if you can throw AI at all of those "opportunities" it adds up substantially because all the chores can be automated.

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#104

Cool, but don't get me wrong, isn't this essentially similar to Google's Co-Scientist, where multiple models are in a loop, passing context back and forth validating things? At its core, it's still a system of LLMs, which is impressive in execution but not fundamentally new. LLMs are undoubtedly useful at tasks like code "optimisation" and detecting patterns or redundancies that humans might overlook, but this announ…

Few things are more Google than having two distinct teams building two distinct products that are essentially the same thing.

this is the same team and it's pretty obvious they would apply the same ideas to two different problems that can both benefit from it no?

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#105
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not that you get downvoted because they don’t understand you, it is because you sell your opinion as fact, like an apostle. For example what does it mean that software engineering is solved?

Check his profile. > about: I believe in the creation of a machine god Sounds about right.

I wonder if he’s a machine himself?

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#106

Cool, but don't get me wrong, isn't this essentially similar to Google's Co-Scientist, where multiple models are in a loop, passing context back and forth validating things? At its core, it's still a system of LLMs, which is impressive in execution but not fundamentally new. LLMs are undoubtedly useful at tasks like code "optimisation" and detecting patterns or redundancies that humans might overlook, but this announ…

Few things are more Google than having two distinct teams building two distinct products that are essentially the same thing.

You can contrast that with Microsoft, where the same team is building the same product with two distinct names.

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#107
post #97

Too bad the code isn't published. I would expect everything from DeepMind to be opensource, except model itself.

In the past AI wasn't really competing with other AI for user dollars. It was more just a bolted on "feature".

Nowadays it makes much more sense to share less.

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#109
post #95
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not read this linked article, but your comment made me recall a discussion about a speed up of CUDA kernels presented by Sakana AI Labs. The researcher Ravid Shwartz Ziv at NYU posted about it on LinkedIn [1], and here is the Twitter post of interest [2] """ Yesterday's news about Sakana AI Labs provided an important lesson for all of us working with AI agents. Their announcement of an AI system that could sup…

lmao this is exactly the kind of stuff I always see from Claude. It’s like adding a Skip() to a test and declaring it works now. “Well it’s a lot faster, I met the criteria of my TODOs cya” I’ve seen it so much I kinda doubt it was “inadvertent” because they’re like seemingly intentional about their laziness, and will gaslight you about it too.

Same thing for TypeScript type errors… “AI added as any and the problem is fixed”!

Re: AlphaEvolve: A Gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms

#110
post #102
post #92

This is great. But how incremental are these advancements? I picked one at random (B.2 -- the second autocorrelation inequality). Then, I looked up the paper that produced the previous state of the art ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1379 ). It turns out that the authors had themselves found the upper bound by performing a numerical search using "Mathematica 6" (p.4). Not only did the authors consider this as a secondar…

Merely from your telling, it seems it is no longer "not worth the effort", as "the effort" has been reduced drastically. This is itself significant.

That right and In fact it’s the core purpose of the tool.

This is complex automation which by definition compresses the solution into a computable process that works more efficiently than the non-automated process

That, in fact, is the revolutionary part - you’re changing how energy is used to solve the problem.

Post reply on HN