Live data from Hacker News

We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

anthropic.com

271–280 of 787 posts

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prove this statement wrong. If all it takes is "trained on the Internet" and "decompress stored knowledge", then surely gpt3, 3.5, 4, 4.1, 4o, o1, o3, o4, 5, 5.1, 5.x should have been able to do it, right? Claude 2, 3, 4, 4.1, 4.5? Surely.

Are you really asking for "all the previous versions were implemented so poorly they couldn't even do this simple, basic LLM task"?

Please look at the source code and tell me how this is a "simple, basic LLM task".

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#272
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The result is hardly a clean room implementation. It was rather a brute force attempt to decompress fuzzily stored knowledge contained within the network and it required close steering (using a big suite of tests) to get a reasonable approximation to the desired output. The compression and storage happened during the LLM training. Prove this statement wrong.

Nobody disputes that the LLM was drawing on knowledge in its training data. Obviously it was! But you'll need to be a bit more specific with your critique, because there is a whole spectrum of interpretations, from "it just decompressed fuzzily-stored code verbatim from the internet" (obviously wrong, since the Rust-based C compiler it wrote doesn't exist on the internet) all the way to "it used general knowledge fro…

"clean room" usually means "without looking at the source code" of other similar projects. But presumably the AIs training data would have included GCC, Clang, and probably a dozen other C compilers.

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people care more about compile times than the performance of generated code. Perhaps even the correctness of generated code. Perhaps more so than determinism of the generated code. Different people in different contexts can have different priorities. Trying to make everyone happy can sometimes lead to making no one happy. Thus dichotomies like `-O2` vs `-Os`. EDIT (since HN is preventing me from responding): > S…

Some people care more about compiler speed than the correctness? I would love to meet these imaginary people that are fine with a compiler that is straight up broken. Emitting working code is the baseline, not some preference slider.

Let's pretend, for just a second, that the people who do, having been able to learn how to program, are not absolute fucking morons. Straight up broken is obviously not useful, so maybe the conclusions you've jumped to could use some reexamination.

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#274

Next time can you build a Rust compiler in C? It doesn't even have to check things or have a borrow checker, as long as it reduces the compile times so it's like a fast debug iteration compiler.

You will experience very spooky behaviour if you do this, as the language is designed around those semantics. Nonetheless, mrustc exists: https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc

It will not be noticeably faster because most of the time isn't spent in the checks, it's spent in the codegen. The cranelift backend for rustc might help with this.

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#275

This is a much more reasonable take than the cursor-browser thing. A few things that make it pretty impressive: > This was a clean-room implementation (Claude did not have internet access at any point during its development); it depends only on the Rust standard library. The 100,000-line compiler can build Linux 6.9 on x86, ARM, and RISC-V. It can also compile QEMU, FFmpeg, SQlite, postgres, redis > I started by draf…

Honestly I don't find it that impressive. I mean, it's objectively impressive that it can be done at all, but it's not impressive from the standpoint of doing stuff that nearly all real-world users will want it to do.

The C specification and Linux kernel source code are undoubtedly in its training data, as are texts about compilers from a theoretical/educational perspective.

Meanwhile, I'm certain most people will never need it to perform this task. I would be more interested in seeing if it could add support for a new instruction set to LLVM, for example. Or perhaps write a complier for a new language that someone just invented, after writing a first draft of a spec for it.

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#276

Ha yes classic showcase of: 1) obvious green field project 2) well defined spec which will definitely be in the training data 3) an end result which lands you 90% from the finish Now comes the hard part, the last 10%. Still not impressed here. Since fixing issues in the end was impossible without introducing bugs I have doubts about quality I'm glad they do call it out in the end. That's fair

We went from barely able to ask these things to write a function to writes a compiler that actually kind of works in under a year. But sure, keep moving the goal posts!

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every S-curve looks like an exponential until you hit the bend.

We've been hearing this for 3 years now. And especially 25 was full of "they've hit a wall, no more data, running out of data, plateau this, saturated that". And yet, here we are. Models keep on getting better, at more broad tasks, and more useful by the month.

Yes, and Moore's law took decades to start to fail to be true. Three years of history isn't even close to enough to predict whether or not we'll see exponential improvement, or an unsurmountable plateau. We could hit it in 6 months or 10 years, who knows.

And at least with Moore's law, we had some understanding of the physical realities as transistors would get smaller and smaller, and reasonably predict when we'd start to hit limitations. With LLMs, we just have no idea. And that could be go either way.

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#278

This is very much a "vibe coding can build you the Great Pyramids but it can't build a cathedral" situation, as described earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46898223 I know this is an impressive accomplishment and is meant to show us the future potential, but it achieves big results by throwing an insane amount of compute at the problem, brute forcing its way to functionality. $20,000 set on fire, at…

> $20,000 in API costs

I would interpret this as being at API pricing. At subscription pricing, it's probably at most 5 or 6 Max subscriptions worth.

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#279
post #45

100.000 lines of code for something that is literally a text book task? I guess if it only created 1.000 lines it would be easy to see where those lines came from.

indeed building a working C compiler from scratch is literally in my "teach yourself C in 24 hours" book from 30 years ago

Which book was that? Sounds excellent.

Might have been Compiler Design in C from 1990. Looks like that's available for free now: https://holub.com/compiler/

Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler

#280

This is a much more reasonable take than the cursor-browser thing. A few things that make it pretty impressive: > This was a clean-room implementation (Claude did not have internet access at any point during its development); it depends only on the Rust standard library. The 100,000-line compiler can build Linux 6.9 on x86, ARM, and RISC-V. It can also compile QEMU, FFmpeg, SQlite, postgres, redis > I started by draf…

> This was a clean-room implementation This is really pushing it, considering it’s trained on… internet, with all available c compilers. The work is already impressive enough, no need for such misleading statements.

I'm using AI to help me code and I love Anthropic but I chocked when I read that in TFA too.

It's all but a clean-room design. A clean-room design is a very well defined term: "Clean-room design (also known as the Chinese wall technique) is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights associated with the original design."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean-room_design

The "without infringing any of the copyrights" contains "any".

We know for a fact that models are extremely good at storing information with the highest compression rate ever achieved. It's not because it's typically decompressing that information in a lossy way that it didn't use that information in the first place.

Note that I'm not saying all AIs do is simply compress/decompress information. I'm saying that, as commenters noted in this thread, when a model was caught spotting out Harry Potter verbatim, there is information being stored.

It's not a clean-room design, plain and simple.

Post reply on HN