Live data from Hacker News

We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

juxt.pro

111–120 of 213 posts

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#111
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not even clear if AI was used to find the bug It's not even clear you read the article

Even worse, the other child comments are speculating (and didn't RTFA either) when the answer is clear in the article. > We found this defect by distilling a behavioural specification of the IMU subsystem using Allium, an AI-native behavioural specification language.

That's the opposite of clear to me.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even clear if AI was used to find the bug: they mention modeling the software with an "ai native" language, whatever that means. What is not clear is how they found themselves modeling the gyros software of the apollo code to begin with. But, I do think their explanation of the lock acquisition and the failure scenario is quite clear and compelling.

> It's not even clear if AI was used to find the bug The intro says “We used Claude and Allium”. Allium looks like a tool they’ve built for Claude. So the article is about how they used their AI tooling and workflow to find the bug.

The article does not explain anything about how they used AI—it just has some relation with the behavioral model a human seems to have written (and an AI does not seem necessary to use!)

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a miracle nobody died in flight during the program. Exploding oxygen tank, rockets shaking themselves to pieces during launch, getting hit by lightning on top of a flying skyscraper full of kerosene and liquid oxygen....

Starting from the first test pilots, a lot of people died for us to get to the point to launch that flight. So while no one died on the flight, lots of people died just getting us there. If I recall, in The Right Stuff, it's mentioned that those early test pilots had something like a 25% mortality rate.

The early jet age was pretty nuts. Check the Wikipedia page for a random fighter from the era and you'll see figures like, 1,300 built, 50 lost in combat, 1,100 lost in accidents. And that's operational aircraft. Test pilots were in even more danger.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#116

Still my all time favorite snippet of code. TC BANKCALL # TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE CADR STOPRATE # TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE TC DOWNFLAG # PERMIT X-AXIS OVERRIDE https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/Luminar...

Can you explain this to me?

Wish I could... but I know of it from a previous HN post, where there is some discussion on its purpose.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22367416

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#117

Still my all time favorite snippet of code. TC BANKCALL # TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE CADR STOPRATE # TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE TC DOWNFLAG # PERMIT X-AXIS OVERRIDE https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/Luminar...

Can you explain this to me?

I think the point was the comments more than any of the code requiring explanation. There's nothing more permanent than a temporary solution

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate that I can’t write em dashes freely anymore without people accusing the writing of being AI generated. Even though they are perfect for usage in writing down thoughts and notes.

One thing you can try⸺admittedly it's not quite correct⸺is replacing them with a two-em dash. I've never seen an AI use one, and it looks pretty funky.

Since the advantage of standards is that there are so many to choose from, one lesser-used but still regionally acceptable approach (e.g. https://www.alberta.ca/web-writing-style-guide-punctuation#j...) is to use en-dashes offset with spaces.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#119
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say they're dispositive. I said they're suspicious. Most people don't write effectively.

So LLMs write effectively and when people do you accuse them of using an LLM?

No, they don't. They use short sentences in weird, stilted ways.

Re: We found an undocumented bug in the Apollo 11 guidance computer code

#120
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the top reply on a substantial percentage of HN posts now and we should discourage it. It is: - sneering - a shallow dismissal (please address the content) - curmudgeonly - a tangential annoyance All things explicitly discouraged in the site guidelines. [1] Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page. We don't need the same comment on every single article. [1] - https://news…

It's not a shallow dismissal; it's a dismissal for good reason. It's tangential to the topic, but not to HN overall. It's only curmudgeonly if you assume AI-written posts are the inevitable and good future (aka begging the question). I really don't know how it's "sneering", so I won't address that.

The fact that the whole thread has basically devolved into debates over if it is or isn't an LLM written article is proving well enough that it doesn't really matter one way or another
Post reply on HN