You can get 80% there with rust which is what is impressive. Then you have a reference implementation that you can always check against. If a Rust library have 0 unsafe, i dont care if it is written by a dog, it still have 0 UB.
UB is especially bad but also not as big as all other concerns combined. Two of the most reliable software ever to exist, curl and SQLite, are C/C++. There are also cases in system programming, drivers etc where the unsafe is necessary and then your code is only as good as the boundary, and lots of bugs can seep in. Another issue with Rust is ecosystem - the dependency trees required to do fairly basic things are often deep and vast, meaning other risks.
That said if something like rsync was written today, I still think Rust may be a better choice. Mainly because a 95 percentile skilled Rust programmer is less dangerous than for C. The people that are skilled enough to be trusted with C are few and diminishing every year.
You realize that the limit of this is that the only people worth existing is the people with capital?
> I foresee a wave of entrepreneurship coming. AI will empower more people to provide useful services directly to other people, with less middlemen and menial work, and more direct problem solving.
Why do I need to buy products/services from this startups when I can just reverse engineer their product and use all my capital to make them?
> only people worth existing is the people with capital?
replying to this with my thoughts
IMO The missing link is that, as long as humans still have political power, that is the basis of their economic power under the new system. The reason is that it is a continuation of the dynamic we see now in western decadence - politicians bribe the populace for votes. So on one side you have the market for political support, balanced with the market for capitalist robot operations, on either side of the political arena.
I mean there is pressure on democratic governments to increase benefits - welfare, disability, retirement etc, spending, beyond a sustainable amount. (However if AI delivers massive productivity gains its whats going to keep humans in the game (our political power))
> IMO The missing link is that, as long as humans still have political power, that is the basis of their economic power under the new system.
It's because of this Big Tech is busy undermining the basis of democracy, isolating people in bubbles, poisoning political discourse with slop and pimping would be autocrats. They want to strip political power from common citizens, turning toward sefdom.
Does it matter if the moment is real? What makes you think that all of the photos that have been taken thus far are real? What makes you think that the photographer chose a certain angle to craft a story? Is that moment real? When people say "cheese" in photos to make them smile, are those real?
I am not a proponent of AI images, believe me, but I find it interesting to think that people would not like AI images. People don't really care if something is real or not. They just want to be told a good story.
i.e. we are fucked, but we have already been fucked for years without knowing. Call me a luddite but selfies is the fakest shit ever. I would rather take pictures of plants, rocks and animals than people.
I think you are right, but I still care. I want to write software that is immortal. My dream is to write code that people would be happy to read and easy to understand. It is also some kind of meditation. I can zone into something and "get my hand dirty".
> I sometimes wonder if people get into this to create an actual working something or they just enjoy sorting colored blocks for the heck of it.
So yes, to be honest, some people write software for the "heck of it". Will my implementation of Lisp interpreter matter at all in the grand scheme of things? No. It is in fact a waste of time, because you _could_ have learnt how it works and implement it in less than an hour with LLM.
> The spec, the intent, the architecture, the contracts are what I find interesting.
To me, this is like saying the financial of the company is what determines the company's success, not whatever the engineering team is doing. So instead of thinking about the "The spec, the intent, the architecture, the contracts", just give the right monetary incentives and you will come up with a successful project.
From this perspective, can you empathize with the "low level" developers?
I have been thinking of something like this. We are paid to solve problems but should we really solve them?
This is easiest to see in games, when people complain about the balance of a game, they often want some "problems" to be solved. "This map is massive, can't we just create teleportation nodes everywhere? Can't we just have a very fast flying mount?". To me this is missing the point, is battle mechanic an obstacle over the story? Maybe it is, but have you considered that they expected to experience the story with the combat?
In real life, it is not so easy to say "This problem is necessary for human life". If an LLM can infer what I want to say to someone in a much clearer form, should we do that? Should we use LLM to fix all of our grammars? Should making accounts be really cheap? Is market making a problem that we should solve? Should we really make it easier for people to invest i.e. democratizing finance? Should we really give everyone access to 1GBps bandwidth internet? Should we really want full internet access everywhere even in the middle of Amazon forest?
Personally, I don't know if the answer is that straightforward. For each of the items I listed, I can see things that we lose. A lot of humanity is problem solving, and we have solve a lot of problems that have kept humanity busy for most of their lives. We are not living in an era where problems that we face are unique and we are simply not designed for.
Post ain't about project written in LLM (and Rust one have 6 months in good ol' craft code) but about contrast between two variants.
While personally I'm skeptical about LLM usage (and vibe coding in general) I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist just on principle. I wouldn't risk rewrite 6 months worth of code to Rails but it's a perfectly good case for LLM conversion.
Open software should not implement this feature because slippery slope is not a fallacy based on my experience. Force them to actually create a government approved operating systems to make it clear how absurd this is and so that we know who will bend the knee.
I had a pretty good time asking a question about Prolog. It was a really interesting experience knowing that there's someone out there that high proficiency in a very niche language, patiently explaining to me an issue that they have probably heard a million times from yet another imperative programmer. They even have their own website advocating for Prolog, etc.
Now, I could imagine an LLM would be able to do the same. However, I understand that this is only possible because of people like them. I don't think the youngins that started with LLM directly would appreciate the humongous amount of data and discussions online that enables that. The internet is so much bigger than just Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.
