Long-ass LLM write-up that repeats itself several times, i couldn't finish reading.
Big if true, etc
We sped up bun by 100x
61–68 of 68 posts
Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bun's attempted to integrate with libgit2 instead of spawning calls to the git CLI and found it to be consistently 3x slower iirc The micro-benchmarks are for the internal git operations that bun rn delegates to CLI calls. Overall, network time (ie round trip to GitHub and back) is what balances the performance when evaluating `bun install` but there are still places where ziggit has better visible wins like on arm-b…
I don't know what that "BENCHMARKS" document is supposed to show. When I try to replicate their results I'm getting wildly faster executions of standard git, and they don't provide enough details for me to theorize why. I also noticed that their version of the "blame src/main.zig" command doesn't actually work (it shows all lines as not being committed). Sure, it's easy to optimize an algorithm if you just don't do t…
Only 1.3x speed despite not working lol
Amazing what agents can achieve
Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#63Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to maintain a completely separate implementation of AI generated code that's translated from C, so not even idiomatic zig. Edit And then I go their repository and read commits like this https://github.com/hdresearch/ziggit/commit/31adc1da1693e402... which confirms it wasn't even looked over by a human.
This was orchestrated and developed by agents with verifications like the codebase compiling or git's CLI test suite passing. That was so the commit authors don't all appear like blank accounts on GitHub
Surely "the commits are attributed to the user who creates them" is a pretty basic feature of the git CLI, and not something that you can add in as a fix later after posting your project to Github and writing a blog post about how much faster than git it is.
It's very easy to be faster than git's CLI if you don't have to do any of the things that git's CLI does!
Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, if you have a complete test suite for a library or CLI tool, it is possible to prompt Claude Opus 4.6 such that it creates a 100% passing, "more performant", drop-in replacement. This was the "validation" used for determining how much progress was made at a given point in time. Re training data concerns, this was done and shipped to be open source (under GPLv2) so there's no abuse of open source work here imo…
I suppose "Project X has been used productively by Y developers for Z amount of time" is a decent-enough endorsement (in this case, ziggit used by you). But after the massive one-off rewrite, what are the chances that (a) humans will want to do any personal effort on reading it, documenting it, understanding it, etc., or that (b) future work by either agents or humans is going to be consistently high-quality? Beyond…
Perhaps there's a future where "add a new feature" means "add tests for that feature and re-implement the whole project from scratch in AI".
But that approach would create significant instability. You can't write tests that will cover every possible edge case. That's why good thinking & coding, not good tests, is the foundation of good software.
Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#66These "AI rewrite" projects are beginning to grate on me. Sure, if you have a complete test suite for a library or CLI tool, it is possible to prompt Claude Opus 4.6 such that it creates a 100% passing, "more performant", drop-in replacement. However, if the original package is in its training data, it's very likely to plagiarize the original source. Also, who actually wants to use or maintain a large project that no…
You raised very good points, however, what you typed negatively affects the shell game (as to what "AI" companies are often really doing) and partial pyramid scheme.
People seem not to realize that AI companies can not only plagiarize someone's original source code, but any source code that people connected to it are feeding and uploading to it. The shell game is taking Tom's code (with a few changes) and feeding it to Bill (based on prompts given). Both Tom and Bill are paying fees to the AI company, yet don't realize their code (along with many others) can be spit back at them.
You, the humans, are doing a lot of the work, and many don't realize it. Because Tom is not realizing someone has or is working on something similar. The AI company is connecting Tom and Bill together, without either of them realizing it. If they type in the right prompt, the search then feeds back that info. It's not the only thing going on or only way things work, but it is part of it, that is often not publicly acknowledged.
Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#67These "AI rewrite" projects are beginning to grate on me. Sure, if you have a complete test suite for a library or CLI tool, it is possible to prompt Claude Opus 4.6 such that it creates a 100% passing, "more performant", drop-in replacement. However, if the original package is in its training data, it's very likely to plagiarize the original source. Also, who actually wants to use or maintain a large project that no…
You raised very good points, however, what you typed negatively affects the shell game (as to what "AI" companies are often really doing) and partial pyramid scheme. People seem not to realize that AI companies can not only plagiarize someone's original source code, but any source code that people connected to it are feeding and uploading to it. The shell game is taking Tom's code (with a few changes) and feeding it…
OpenAI definitely has used input tokens to further train its models, but Anthropic has emphatically stated they do no such thing. I have trusted them so far on that. Are you saying they're lying?
Re: We sped up bun by 100x
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
You raised very good points, however, what you typed negatively affects the shell game (as to what "AI" companies are often really doing) and partial pyramid scheme. People seem not to realize that AI companies can not only plagiarize someone's original source code, but any source code that people connected to it are feeding and uploading to it. The shell game is taking Tom's code (with a few changes) and feeding it…
OpenAI definitely has used input tokens to further train its models, but Anthropic has emphatically stated they do no such thing. I have trusted them so far on that. Are you saying they're lying?
I'm not going against any explicit policy or promise to customers that a particular AI company might make, but rather what is and can be happening that a lot of the public doesn't realize in general. A lot of what is attributed to AI, can be the work of humans (including customers), that in various cases were or arguably being ripped-off. Speaking of which, there are lots of cases of companies claiming to use or have an AI product, but instead were just using humans for low pay (but wasn't previously referring to that).
In the Tom and Bill shell game example given, where they are being used for their code and to correct code that is sold to other customers, it's not a "now" thing either. Meaning Tom, Bill, and the other customers don't have to be exchanging code in real time, when that code is being uploaded, saved, and trained on by AI companies. Tom could have worked on some code a month ago, that was slurped up from Susan. Tom fixed many of the errors of Susan's code, which is now fed to Bill, when he inputs the correct prompts. Bill thinks the AI is the "genius", but is unknowingly benefiting from Bill's and Susan's work, review, and corrections. Potentially more devastating to Bill, is what he may mistakenly think was private or secret to only him, is fed to other customers for profit.
AI and their companies are also connecting people, in that indirect black box way, where those people may not realize they are connected, being fed, and are correcting each others code. Yeah, some may not care where the code comes from or how, but that they can use it for their personal purposes. Sure, that's not the only part of the story and LLMs are doing some interesting and amazing things, but there is another part of that story that is not being more widely acknowledged. In a similar way in which has angered so many artists and authors, where they feel aggrieved and taken advantage of; relative to many art, song, and book lawsuits.