I am a software engineer by trade, so biases’ being what they are. But what I was more trying to demonstrate is that it is provable. Not that making the proof is easy.
hmmm, I just copied from Wikipedia as my primary source. That was the faux pas that was cool before AI.
I know you said all, but I’m curious which part do you think is horse shit? Do you think Torvalds is lying about using AI all together? or just how useful AI actually was? The commit with the alleged AI use is in the an RC for the next release, and it is authored by Torvalds.
Code is probably one of the easiest things to verify, for that reason I struggle to see any other viable uses for LLMs tbh.
user: write code that correctly asserts what 1+1 equals.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 4);
LLM: hmmm, that crashed.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 3);
LLM: hmmm, that also crashed, I must be doing something wrong, let me try one more time.
LLM: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);
LLM: that worked!
LLM Response: assert_eq!(1 + 1, 2);
user: what does this sentence mean? "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
LLM Response: This doesn't mean anything, or someone really likes buffalo's
I can always run the code to check, I still don’t know how that sentence makes sense.
Ah, that’s probably it. And yeah, governments need to figure out how to manage this. I think it’s destined to be bound by whatever is actually economical post hype. Not pending efficiency breakthroughs of the likes of mores law.