Here's where I would expect the CEOs of the other AI labs to stand by Anthropic and say no.

Polyamory still comes off as a low status behavior.

Karpathy is probably the most careful not to write off LLMs entirely but he seems pretty skeptical.

Untyped FP languages can be productive, flexible, even elegant (I guess) but they are structurally incapable of expressing large classes of correctness claims that typed FP makes routine.

That doesn’t make them useless, just, you know. Inferior.

The missing context whenever this comes up is the fact that it was a surprise one off.

If developers have no idea they're going to be graded by lines of code at some random future date that's a much different situation than saying you're going to give bonuses away every month based on how many lines of code were written.

Everyone knows the second is bad, it'll be gamed massively. The first one could be useful though.

And yes doing it as a one off is still problematic and you can think of all kinds of exceptions, but if you think the organization is full of dead weight in general and overhired massively, a crude stack ranking by lines of code is a pretty good metric for figuring out which (e.g.) 50% is the bottom.

It's true this was 4 months after AoC 2024 was out, so it may have been trained on the answer, but I think that's way too soon.

Day 3 in 2024 isn't a Math Olympiad tier problem or anything but it seems novel enough, and my prior experience with LLMs were that they were absolutely atrocious at assembler.

https://adventofcode.com/2024/day/3

I think the burden is on AI fanbois to ship amazing tools in novel projects before they ask projects with reputations to risk it all on their hype.

To deliver a kernel of truth wrapped in a big bale of sarcasm: you're thinking of it all wrong! The maintainers are supposed to also use AI tools to review the PRs. That's much more sustainable and would allow them to merge 13,000 line PRs several times a day, instead of taking weeks/months to discuss every little feature.

The difference here of course is in how impressed you are by AI tools. The OCaml maintainers are not (and rightly so, IMO), whereas the PR submitter thinks they're so totally awesome and leaving tons of productivity on the table because they're scared of progress or insecure about their jobs or whatever.

Maybe OCaml could advance rapidly if they just YOLO merged big ambitious AI generated PRs (after doing AI code reviews) but that would be a high risk move. They have a reputation for being mature, high quality, and (insanely) reasonable. They would torch it very quickly if people knew this was happening and I think most people here would say the results would be predictably bad.

But lets take the submitter's argument at face value. If AI is so awesome, then we should be able to ship code in new projects unhampered by gatekeepers who insist on keeping slow humans in the loop. Or, to paraphrase other AI skeptics, where's all of the shovelware? How come all of these AI fanbois can only think about laundering their contributions through mature projects instead of cranking out amazing new stuff?

Where's my OCaml compiler 100% re-written in Rust that only depends on the Linux kernel ABI? Should cost a few hundred bucks in Claude credits at most?

To be clear, the submitter has gotten the point and said he was taking his scraps and going to make his own sausage (some Lisp thing). The outcome of that project should be very informative.

Is it? What happens if you remove that one last reference to a long chain of objects? You might unexpectedly be doing a ton of freeing and have a long pause. And free itself can be expensive.

You are not standing up for them by pirating their stuff from YouTube.

If you have a problem with it, it is on you to stop using YouTube to view their content. You did not gain a moral right to pirate their stuff just because you don't like the deal.