Yes, we will certainly go that way, probably code already added to gcc has been developed through collaborative AI tools. Agree we don't call that "produced by AI".
I think compilers though are a rare case where large scale automated verification is possible. My guess is that starting from gcc, and all existing documentation on compilers, etc. and putting ridiculous amounts of compute into this problem will yield a compiler that significantly improves benchmarks.
As someone who leans pro in this debate, I don't think I would make that statement. I would say the results are exactly as we expect.
Also, a highly verifiable task like this is well suited to LLMs, and I expect within the next ~2 years AI tools will produce a better compiler than gcc.
"Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on a call Friday evening that the administration came to the fee of $100,000 per year, plus vetting costs, after talking with companies.
He noted that the payment structure is still under discussion with the Department of Homeland Security, in terms of “whether we’re going to charge the $300,000 up front or $100,000 a year for the three years.”
While it's easy to agree with you, I find that my opinion here has shifted after leaving a large tech company for a seed stage startup. Competing against these giant companies is really challenging, you have to me more than 2x better to get a customer to look at you a second time.