Ask for more regulation.

AFAIK, the only correlation with LoC that's got solid evidence is this: the number of bugs correlates with LoC.

Must have 120 fps for answers arriving in [buffering] 30 seconds.

Indeed... why is Anthropic even employing people at all if this AI magic story is true?

You still need wizards to cast the spells..

Not if you’re claiming that the spells, once cast, automatically get exponentially spellier until they awaken into a spell god, capable of literally anything, including casting more complicated spells than any wizard is capable of. If that were true, you’d have no need for wizards. The fact that wizards are still around means it’s probably bullshit.

So in your opinion AIsnd LLMs aren’t improving? They can’t do it today, therefore they never will?

Certainly has never been times in the recent past when people have confidently predicted computers could never do something that computers were then able to do shortly after the prediction was made.

They literally aren't! they literally say in this article that it's not there yet!!!

Did actually expect people to read the article before commenting?

What really happens is the spells only have other spells to draw from and they begin to degenerate over time, eventually turning into chaotic eldritch horrors that randomly add limbs to people or adamantly refuse to discuss goblins or just shriek in gibbering madness. Our Evil Overlord sacrifices the dreams of children to keep the magic sustained and controlled, and soon the people can't even think or speak without the help of magic. And they think they're wizards even though they can't even read a grimoire.

Is it too much to ask that people read the article before commenting?

Not if your spells cast their own spells.

Read the article.

They are saying very clearly the models are not casting their own spells…yet. But looking at trends and speculating when they may start doing so.

You misunderstood their example, I think.

If doesn't matter what 'p' is in their example. The point is: if 'f' is undefined behavior (rather than just impl-defined), then the optimizer concludes that the "if p { f() }" can never happen... which means that we're allowed to assume that 'if p { ... } else { ... }' (in the first part of the example) will always take the else branch. The compiler will optimize accordingly and just always call g() unconditionally.

Yeah, I've been playing BG3 on Linux[0] for about 2 years at this point (using a Lutris "recipe" or whatever they call it). Ironically, the biggest issues have been with some of the modding tools needing specific versions of DotNet and whatnot. The game itself runs flawlessly.

[0] Arch Linux, btw, because that must be mentioned.

Actually, I have been having a specific issue with pickpocketing in BG3. On native Windows and native Linux, the client crashes if I pickpocket too quick. One time, on Linux, it even made my whole OS crash (and then some weird error BIOS error). But specifically with Wine on Linux, it does not occur. The only reason I even tried with Wine on Linux is because I wanted to try some mods unavailable otherwise. It does seem the native port has better latency, but latency in a game like this is pretty irrelevant.

I have been using Linux for nearly 30 years now, including running CS (HL1) via Wine with better performance and stability than Windows 9x on a LAN party. Good times.

Sometimes native ports don't get updates, while Windows port does. If you can then run it via Wine, you may have a more stable/less buggy experience.

Note I use both Wine and Proton. BG3 I run with Proton. But Proton is 'just' a fork with (neat) improvements which also partly got backported.

Oh, and I have to mention, I don't use Arch Linux.

Huh, I was unaware that BG3 had a native Linux release, as it's not listed on the Steam store page. Turns out that they released it only for the Steam Deck. Strange

Yeah there's some weirdness too, it's heavily optimised for the Deck, low rez textures, low shadow quality etc.

So if you force it to run on your Linux desktop you don't get an experience commensurate with your hardware.

It was released at "end of life" for Larian patches for BG3, so I can imagine they didn't want to support any old Linux distro. I believe it is technically possible to run it on distros that are "similar enough"[0], but it's pretty pointless if you want to use any PC-only mods, etc.

[0] I still use Arch, btw. :)

The overhead isn't zero, but with SSDs (and filesystem caches in the gigabytes these days) it's damn near insignificant in pure terms of opening files and such.

Generated tests... I mean... listen to yourself.

I can generate a lot of tests amounting to assert(true). Yeah, LLM generated tests aren't quite that simplistic, but are you checking that all the tests actually make sense and test anything useful? If no, those tests are useless. If yes, I don't actually believe you.

It's the typical 10 line diff getting scrutinized to death, 1000 line diff: Instant LGTM.

Pay attention to YOUR OWN incentives.

> However, the best engineers I know are usually among the quickest to open an editor or debugger and use it fluently to try something out.

That's not my experience... mostly it's about first interrogating the actual problem with the customer and conditions under which it occurs. Maybe we even have appropriate logging in our production application? We usually do, because you know, we usually need to debug things that have already happened.

(If it's new/unreleased code, sure fine, let's find a debugger.)