> Anthropic claims AI will replace industry X in Y months

False, Anthropic didn’t claim what was linked in the article.

> OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speculates that enough AI compute could help figure out how to cure cancer

Idk likely true? What’s so wrong here.

> Elon Musk says there will be no need for compilers as AI will write the binary directly

What seems so off about this? AI can write binary and probably better in a few years. Higher level languages would still be efficient probably.

> Anthropic claims that Mythos is super dangerous, the people can’t possibly handle such a powerful cyberweapo

Well it was?

▲

IndeanCondor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> AI can write binary and probably better in a few years.

Assuming you mean an LLM, you'd have to train this LLM entirely on a parameter space of binary tokens. Or are you saying the LLM generating natural language tokens is going to be printing machine language in 3-5 years, because that claim kinda betrays a misunderstanding of LLM functions.

	▲	drjasonharrison 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You don't use an LLM to create images, that requires (today) transformer model. I assume that "AI can write binary" means "AI can use a toolset that results in a binary" because we've already seen GPTs use a combination of LLM and specialized math tools to do the things the original GPTs did.

▲

bigmattystyles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> > Elon Musk says there will be no need for compilers as AI will write the binary directly

Wouldn’t that make the AI the compiler?

▲

atq2119 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right. There is something interesting here that could be explored thoughtfully. The hard part is that we rely on compilers being correct, and they mostly are.

We have no viable mechanism yet to get the same level of confidence if some LLM-based system writes the binary.

Perhaps we can get to a system that produces not just the binary but also a machine-verifiable proof that the binary implements some higher-level language description of the program.

Though then the question will be whether we've gained anything, or whether we've just replaced the compiler with something massively more expensive that does the same thing.

There's some potential here for the LLM-based system to drive better performance optimizations than a regular compiler could.

Of course this isn't what Elon is actually saying, and we'd be better off if fewer people listened to him.

	▲	overgard an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Perhaps we can get to a system that produces not just the binary but also a machine-verifiable proof that the binary implements some higher-level language description of the program. We don't even have a solution to the halting problem, and it probably can't be solved. "Proof it implements a spec" is pure science fiction. Hard agree that we'd all be better off muting Elon Musk though.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

overgard an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

People love non-deterministic compilers. </s>