This makes me feel physically ill. It's like something straight out of a sci-fi dystopia, how did this get approved? Who determined that reinjecting biological activity into a human brain is definitely not some form of reanimation? If they're using heavy sedation to prevent electrical activity, is that not tacit admission they're not 100% sure that consciousness might return otherwise? How did this pass ethics review, or did they even bother?
Approved? Ethics review? This is a private company. I was shocked when NYT Daily casually mentioned this exact behavior at Altos last week and just laughed it off. Like what is funny about making infinite torture machines because billionaires want to live forever?
Dude we can't revive brains minutes after cardiac arrest, when they're inside their bodies, even when we're TRYING TO DO SO. You can think about "what if" if you like the though experiment, but seriously arguing that there's any way that brains could recover consciousness the next day because you gave them nutrients is like arguing that voyager could crash back on earth and injure someone after being flung backwards around a loose interstellar body.
I think for direct comparison, the way of re-animating the brain described in the article would need to be attempted on the cardiac arrest patient as well so as to be sure it isn’t a “revival”-capable method
Might already be an obvious answer to practitioners in the field
My understanding is that after a few minutes without oxygen, the chemistry inside your brain is "fucked up" and even if you get oxygen back it's gone, you're already a vegetable. I like to think that "the state of the machine is gone" but I'm not a doctor
It's 100% recycling, if the alternative was just "throw away the excess". For all practical purposes, recycling just means "repurposing material that you would have otherwise sent to a landfill".
The issue with "At the right price", is that your minima (what's enough to filter the spam) and maxima (what are legitimate contributors willing to put up with) can be on the wrong side of each other. The "right price", mathematically, isn't guaranteed to exist.
Perfect example of a non-sequitur. Irrespective of whether or not the statement is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of the original claim: that in the current market, the majority of workers simply do not have this leverage.
It's not a communication problem, it's a scale problem. An AI could spit out dozens more massive PRs in less time than it takes you to even evaluate whether or not the current one is AI.
No, reading and understanding is not the bottleneck.
Whoever is running the AI is spamming instead of doing the actual work. IE, they are just pushing their work onto the people who would review legitimate submissions.
Statistically speaking, most codebases are brownfield. Without joining a startup, working on a greenfield project is actually a pretty rare treat. And deleting code is wonderful. I'd go as far as to say lines removed is more often than not more valuable than lines added; every line that's no longer in the codebase is code you no longer have to understand or care about. So long as functionality remains intact, of course.
The problem, as I see it, with prolific use of AI to generate code is that it goes in the exact opposite direction. More and more code is bolted on top of existing code, more and more edge-cases, patch-ups, workarounds, etc. accumulate, the codebase grows and grows. In the end, no matter how good you are at understanding "code from questionable sources", you're still a human being. The AI can generate new code at rates several orders of magnitude faster than you can injest and understand it, and when your meat brain becomes exhausted, the machine does not tire. From a business perspective, your employer will weigh their options: they can wait for you to interpret the code and generate good code (whether by hand or by machine + human review).. Or they can just keep pulling the lever on the slot machine until it works well enough to sell. And for the business exec just looking for the fastest path to paydirt, I'm afraid the latter option is going to look way more appealing.
That you're only just "learning" that these things are true is a damning admission. And to fix your bad analogy, it's more like "hey maybe we shouldn't be allowing f1 street races through school zones".
That analogy might work if this situation is 'reckless behaviour risking children's safety' but in this case it's much closer to 'We made an large, potentially risky change that you can choose to avoid until it's more mature'
They never denied they'd switch, just that they'd need solid improvements confirmed before they switched. Clearly internally they've decided they've seen the gains necessary to carry on with the switch
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely
I know words are hard, but if you find it hard to believe any humans here, then feed it into your favorite LLM.
> I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get it to pass Bun’s test suite and be maintainable. I’d like to be able to compare a viable Rust version and a Zig version side by side.
I know reading the second line of your quote is hard...
This is silly IMHO. They haven’t released a new official Bun version with this code yet. It is a canary release. Give them a chance to figure it out and try it out and see how the limited number of production users of bun as a runtime experience the move. If it succeeds, this will massively accelerate development and they will have much to teach us all about how to safely code 1M lines with AI and merge it in days. If it fails, we will know that AI isn’t ready for that yet
I would personally argue that it's a lot easier to say something definitely isn't x, with confidence, than to say it definitely is. I definitely don't know what the surface of jupiter looks like, but I can pretty confidently say it doesn't look like Kansas.
I think the better it gets, the easier it will be to spot the shortcomings, because the gap between what it can do well and what it can't will widen. Anything the technology is fundamentally incapable of ever achieving will be made obvious by the fact that it will simply continue to not achieve it. We may not be able to easily define the totality of what exactly it needs to have to count as AGI, but the further it progresses, the easier it will be to point out individual things it's definitely missing.
