>heh, AI can't write relevant or good code. >*ACK*

>heh, AI can't write relevant or good code
>*ACK*
it's absolutely over for moronic softwareonly babby codemonkeys.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Link the paper at least

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting. Faster than what?

      Show the algorithms.

      nature url is spamlisted for some reason

      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36228125

      Say it with me anons :
      Published.
      In.
      Nature.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >nature

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >nature supports the big winner
          Based. Trump lost btw.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not an IEEE or ACM journal? Seems a bit odd for a paper that allegedly improves upon fricking sorting...

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nature is the most prestigious journal in all of the natural sciences anon

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            So deepmind is a natural science laboratory? not an Alphabet subsidiary?

            Then again Alphafold and Alphago were also Nature publications (Nature is also in UK), seems like Deepmind has a connection to someone and prefers this journal.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Interesting. Now I know you haven't read it yourself.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          No time to waste anon, there's sudacas to make seethe today

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        It only took 30 scientists working with millions of dollars in funding to improve a single special case of sorting a few integers in a code base that is millions of lines of code and written entirely by volunteers, it is so fricking over

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'd be afraid too anon.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          One time I actually tried to implement one of these bizarro academic algorithms into a library i was making. It was such a massive waste of time, the sample C implementation didnt compile, even once i fixed it it was still useless for any actual non trivial data set.

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting. Faster than what?

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Show the algorithms.

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a good thing being a software engineer isn't just solving a series of self-contained leetcode problems

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >high IQ leet code spergs lose their jobs
    >midwit web devs and java gays keep theirs
    lmao

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      extremely likely to happen, because the inflated VC era salaries are the ones getting targeted for reduction, the low-medium paid midwits who tick a ESG diversity box are mostly likely to stay

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      yea because the algorithms are already done
      you don't need to know them all, you just need to understand when to use which. The leet code is just a test whether you are willing to autistically code for hours on end

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Accoriding to the nature.com article:
    "AlphaDev operated at the level of assembly instructions: code generated by automated compilers from code that programmers write in C++"
    "Depending on the processor used and the number of values to be sorted, AlphaDev’s best algorithms took between 4% and 71% less time than did human algorithms. But when the algorithms were called multiple times to sort lists of one -quarter of a million values, the cumulative time saving was only 1–2%, because of other code it did not optimize."

    It's a start. What if I never get to invent new sorting algos in asm? The article has me really butt hurt. Like full on rectally ravaged.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's at worst the same as current algorithms but already shows it can be much faster
      It can only get better from here

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      So combine AI optimized code with human optimized code, then train on those optimized outputs

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow it can sort 5 numbers really fast
    *yawn*

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one gets hired to code sorting algorithms except a couple of autists who work in niche fields.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good thing the argument was about how "AI can't create anything valuable just entry level code", an argument you have now canonically and utterly lost

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly I rather pajeets just prompt the code and the AI actually write good code.

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    troony bot thread

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I was thinking about this the other month actually. LLMs would be great for machine & bytecode optimization. Welp, here we are.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not what it's doing at all. It's more akin to taking three ints and then sorting them without using if-else

      // Ensures that __c(*__x, *__y) is true by swapping *__x and *__y if necessary.
      template <class _Compare, class _RandomAccessIterator>
      inline _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void __cond_swap(_RandomAccessIterator __x, _RandomAccessIterator __y, _Compare __c) {
      using value_type = typename iterator_traits<_RandomAccessIterator>::value_type;
      bool __r = __c(*__x, *__y);
      value_type __tmp = __r ? *__x : *__y;
      *__y = __r ? *__y : *__x;
      *__x = __tmp;
      }

      // Ensures that *__x, *__y and *__z are ordered according to the comparator __c,
      // under the assumption that *__y and *__z are already ordered.
      template <class _Compare, class _RandomAccessIterator>
      inline _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI void __partially_sorted_swap(_RandomAccessIterator __x, _RandomAccessIterator __y,
      _RandomAccessIterator __z, _Compare __c) {
      using value_type = typename iterator_traits<_RandomAccessIterator>::value_type;
      bool __r = __c(*__z, *__x);
      value_type __tmp = __r ? *__z : *__x;
      *__z = __r ? *__x : *__z;
      __r = __c(__tmp, *__y);
      *__x = __r ? *__x : *__y;
      *__y = __r ? *__y : __tmp;
      }

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        really? damn
        my lack of reading comprehension and susceptibility to making sweeping conclusion from skim reading internet comments fooled me again

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The company that published the paper is owned by Google if that makes any difference.

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Holy shit I love multiculturalism

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >slavs
      >multikulti

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everybody wants to talk about this paper but nobody wants to read the damn thing. Do we at least know to which sorting algorithms the new ones were compared to?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      These.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_network

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who the frick needs faster sorting that cannot be solved with more hardware?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Have you seen what that looks like in practice? Scaling something small goes up really fast and easily will bottleneck "fast" computers with shit code.
      https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/on2-again-now-in-wmi/

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *