Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would imply that the English internet is not much bigger than 20x the English Wikipedia. That seems implausible.
> That seems implausible. Why, exactly? Refuting facts with "I doubt it, bro" isn't exactly a productive contribution to the conversation..
We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
681–690 of 787 posts
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#682Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their technique really stretched the definition of extracting text from the LLM. They used a lot of different techniques to prompt with actual text from the book, then asked the LLM to continue the sentences. I only skimmed the paper but it looks like there was a lot of iteration and repetitive trials. If the LLM successfully guessed words that followed their seed, they counted that as "extraction". They had to put i…
Sure, maybe it's tricky to coerce an LLM into spitting out a near verbatim copy of prior data, but that's orthoginal to whether or not the data to create a near verbatim copy exists in the model weights.
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#683Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing that it "works", but viability is another issue. It cost $20,000 and it worked, but it's also totally possible to spend $20,000 and have Claude shit out a pile of nonsense. You won't know until you've finished spending the money whether it will fail or not. Anthropic doesn't sell a contract that says "We'll only bill you if it works" like you can get from a bunch of humans. Do catastrophic bugs exist in…
> On top of that, Anthropic is losing money on it. It seems they are *not* losing money on inference: https://bsky.app/profile/steveklabnik.com/post/3mdirf7tj5s2e
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#684Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t say it was trivial. Just that I thought my course mates would be able to do it.
You thought your course mates would be able to write a C compiler that builds the Linux? Huh. Interesting. Like the other guy pointed out, compiler classes often get students to write toy C compilers. I think a lot of students don't understand the meaning of the word "toy". I think this thread is FULL of people like that.
Lots of segfaults, too.
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#685Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You may be willing to sell your work at that price, but that’s not the market rate, to put it very mildly. It is now. At any rate, this is my actual rate. I live in South Africa, and that's about 4 weeks of work for me, without an AI.
That’s a VERY nice rate for SA; approximately what I charge in the UK. I assume these are not local companies who hire you.
A local Fintech needing PCI work pays that, but that's not long-term contracts.
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#686I spent a good part of my career (nearly a decade) at Google working on getting Clang to build the linux kernel. https://clangbuiltlinux.github.io/ This LLM did it in (checks notes): > Over nearly 2,000 Claude Code sessions and $20,000 in API costs It may build, but does it boot (was also a significant and distinct next milestone)? (Also, will it blend?). Looks like yes! > The 100,000-line compiler can build a bootab…
Being just a grunt engineer in a product firm I can't imagine being able to spend multiple years on one project. If it's something you're passionate about, that sounds like a dream!
I had to move teams twice before a third team was able to say: this work is valuable to us, please come work for us and focus just on that.
I had to organize multiple internal teams, then build an external community of contributors to collaborate on this shared common goal.
Having carte blanche to contribute to open source projects made this feasible at all; I can see that being a non-starter at many employers, sadly. Having low friction to change teams also helped a lot.
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#687Earlier 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.
That's not what I said; you're attacking a strawman.
My point was more so that some people prefer the madness that is -funsafe-math-optimizations, or happen to rely on UB (intentionally or otherwise). What even is "correct" in the presence of UB? What is correct in such case was left up to interpretation of the implementer by ISO WG14.
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#688Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#689Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On top of that, Anthropic is losing money on it This has got to be my favorite one of them all that keeps coming up in too many comments… You know who also was losing money in the beginning?! every successful company that ever existed! some like Uber were losing billions for a decade. and when was the last time you rode in a taxi? (I still do, my kid never will). not sure how old you are and if you remember “facebo…
Anyone remember the dotcom bust?
Re: We tasked Opus 4.6 using agent teams to build a C Compiler
#690Earlier quoted context omitted.
The classical definition of a clean room implementation is something that's made by looking at the output of a prior implementation but not at the source. I agree that having a reference compiler available is a huge caveat though. Even if we completely put training data leakage aside, they're developing against a programmatic checker for a spec that's already had millions of man hours put into it. This is an optimal…
This is the reimplementation scenario for agentic coding. If you have a good spec and battery of tests you can delete the code and reimplement it. Code is no longer the product of eng work, it is more like bytecode now, you regenerate it, you don't read it. If you have to read it then you are just walking a motorcycle. We have seen at least 3 of these projects - the JustHTML one, the FastRender and this one. All star…
Never was.