| ▲ | famouswaffles 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Well we are kind of arguing past each other aren't we ? "More success" is a bit vague in this instance but building a compiler that would take a programmer 1 to 3 months is not comparable to this result regardless of whatever similarity exists in time completion estimates. That's the point. You can publish a paper (and in fact the researchers plan to) off this result. A basic compiler is cool but otherwise unremarkable. It's been done many times before. You are leaning too hard on how long the researchers (who again did not manage to solve the problem in their attempts) estimated this would take and the "moderately interesting" tag of again, what was still an open research problem. This, alongside a few math and physics results that have cropped up in the last few months is easily more impressive than the vast majority of work being done with LLMs for software. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | staticassertion 3 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> "More success" is a bit vague in this instance but building a compiler that would take a single programmer 1 to 3 months is not comparable to this result regardless of whatever similarity exists in time completion estimates. That's the point. I guess we just disagree on this. It's not clear to me that these are totally different in terms of what they represent. > You can publish a paper (and in fact the researchers plan to) off this result. A basic compiler is cool but otherwise unremarkable. Publishing papers means very, very little to me. I can publish a paper on a programming language, you know that, right? > You are leaning too hard on how long the researchers (who again did not manage to solve the problem in their attempts) estimated this would take and the "moderately interesting" tag of again, what was an open research problem. I obviously estimate my "leanings" as being appropriate. I'm just using the researchers direct quotes. Factually, they had already come up with the approach that ultimately panned out. Factually, they estimated that a human could do this in some timeframe. What am I overly leaning on here? > This, alongside a few math results that have cropped up in the last few months is easily more impressive than the vast majority of work being done with LLMs for software. I think both are impressive, I don't know that I would draw some sort of big conclusions about it at this point. I definitely wouldn't draw the conclusion that AI is better at formal mathematics than producing software. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||