the point of c++ when you need max perf is to be able to maintain the compile-time abstractions you need w/ templates instead of macros and undocumented optimizer behavior, not oop or raii
I take (prescribed) amphetamines and use LLMs, and I think "I wrote this while on amphetamines" will leave you with way better understanding of the code than "I vibecoded this?" Like, to an absurd degree?
Vibecoding $x gives you pretty much the understanding of "someone else did $x," which seems unsurprising to me. There's a lot of usecases for code where "someone else did $x" is a perfectly fine way to accomplish $x! There are also many cases where "someone else did $x" is not a substitute for "I did $x."
"I want a tmux theme that fits with my existing zsh and neovim themes." Is it useful to me to learn how tmux themes work? Eh, marginally maybe? I'm personally kinda hoping I'm not using tmux in 10 years, so probably not.
"I'm writing code for work, where a bad correctness bug would be very expensive." If I'm pulling in someone else's code, I /better/ be auditing that code.
Like, this seems like the obvious framing and a useful heuristic? Maybe the problem is the subject of "vibecoded" is usually "I vibecoded this with Claude," not "Claude vibecoded this with me?" IDK
not sure that works as well when they don't own their API though; how much software is openrouter-only in a way that's not 5min of deepseek to patch the source for, or 15min of opus to patch the binary instead
the compiler can still interleave anything it shows is side-effect free; it’s hard to show that something would benefit from being reordered without analyzing it well enough to determine what side effects it has
If I interpret "a machine superintelligence" as "a classroom of 300IQ humans," I'm not really sure how this is true? You still have material and energy constraints, you can't think your way out of those.
the one where i think of a particular piece of work, and i know who did it, then tell a student "oh, see if $author's group published anything else about this."
i'm not using software for this if this is off the top of my head, and it's the sort of thing that, at scale, hurts the forgotten author and their students
you're thinking of the programs in low-level langs that survived their higher-level-lang competitors; if you plot the programs on your machine by age, how does the low quartile compare on reliability between programs written in each group
my impression is that most CL these days is existing large closed-source codebases, hence the price tag for those compilers (you're not trying it out for a bit, you're funding the compiler devs to work full-time on the issues you're actually having) and relatively little open-source activity for "finished" things -- if you're developing against internal libraries, it's hard to open-source just the part you intend to
(work at a CL shop; mostly SBCL users, but maybe 1/3 of people are die-hard ACL fans)
how does this compare to MoSA (arXiv:2505.00315)? do you require that there's a single contiguous window? and do you literally predict on position, or with a computed feature?
The point of an IRB is to act as an outside reviewer of _ethics_. IRBs aren't some checklist thing admin put in to protect the University's reputation, they exist as a direct reaction to huge amounts of unethical human experimentation occurring last century.
There's usually an if(temp == 0) to change sampling methods to "highest probability" -- if you remove that conditional but otherwise keep the same math, that's not deterministic either.
Researcher at https://www.sift.net/
Email is concat ["me@", username, ".com"]