i like to create enums instead of boolean.

CreateUser(CreateAdmin::enable);

isn't this the stuff llms are supposed to be good at? It seems like all of these "fixes" involve conventional code, not improvements in the models themselves.

and then you click the text box to search (because it doesn't always get focus) and the start menu needs to load another webpage. Sometimes that fails, and the start menu becomes unusable for searching for applications. How the hell does it sometimes take a full minute to open the start menu, type something and press enter, while hoping that the first result you get is the same first result you got when you typed the exact same thing yesterday?

why? We already have more efficient specialized hardware.

"Lua (or any other JIT-compiled scripting language for that matter). That's a standard choice, but it turns out that it's really hard to sandbox it."

This is a sign the author didn't even try it properly. Lua is one of the easiest languages to sandbox. You can choose not to load the dangerous libraries into the environment in the first place, or you can load them and set up a different global environment table that you specify only for any untrusted code (not by prepending text to the untrusted lua code). The only thing you really need to do is to never accept untrusted bytecode and always load untrusted scripts by compiling lua source code, so you can be sure the bytecode is valid. Or you could even very easily spawn a lua state for each separate untrusted lua code.

When I want a scripting language that's easily sandboxable, lua is the first one I reach for.

"Lua is a highly dynamic language that knows nothing about c pointers"

That's why you have both lightuserdata and userdata. Where you can set up a metatable from the C side, which can't be overridden from the lua side. It was honestly one of the easiest languages to integrate (try embedding python, and then tell me how much hair you have left).

And if you use luajit, you also get niceties like native integer support in lua (before lua 5.3, but with sane bitshifting), borderline frictionless FFI (in most cases, just providing the header file is enough). And by frictionless I mean you can literally manipulate c structs directly from luajit, without having to write any translation code (again, luajit parses the header itself). LuaJIT literally satisfies all of the design goals.

but probably his hand won't penetrate into the skull. Bigger contact patch.

smaller handguns don't reliably penetrate bone. it's a misunderstanding. In some cases 22LR can actually bounce off the skull

The round discussed was 9mm Luger, which has no problem penetrating bone.

22 LR is no slouch either. The Alaska state record brown bear was killed by a 22 round through the skull.

You're confusing those cartridges when fired from a rifle length barrel vs. a handgun length barrel. A 1.5 inch barrel on some pocket carried revolver is not going to send 22 LR at anywhere near the speed of a 16 inch barrel

I stand corrected. I'm one of today's lucky 10000

"whoops, we accidentally made our AI super obsessed with goblins" doesn't really sound like they (or anyone else, for that matter) is really in any form of actual control of them. Their fix seems to be to ask it not to in the prompt

we also don't know how your (or any) really brain works. But we know it does, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to write this comment. So should we just shut your brain down?

I didn't call anyone anything. I was just pointing out that we accept lots of things working without understanding why. Biggest example being our very selves.

How you interpreted it as an ad hominem attack, I have no idea.

all abstractions are leaky, but you can always rewrite them in terms of a lower level and preserve semantics 100%. It'll be more verbose, it'll look ugly, it's not convenient to work with, but that's what compilers do. They lower the abstraction level, and emit assembly or machine code. Which could also be theoretically done by a human with the same level of reliability, given infinite time. The abstraction is deterministic. You can know exactly what it is abstracting.

Not so with LLMs. I can give you an english prompt, and several different LLMs the same prompt and you would all understand it differently. There isn't a way to move between abstraction levels.

LLMs can be deterministic, only the current implementations aren't.

I agree that current LLMs are a bad abstraction, and any non-superintelligent AI is worse than a mechanical abstraction in important ways (it's much more complicated, which makes it harder to debug, impossible to prove correct, creates unnecessary coupling, etc.)

But it's still technically an abstraction. A project's source (or part of it, e.g. a single function) could be a sequence of prompts, and even a non-deterministic LLM, if it's good enough, will always output correct code.

If I give someone a piece of code, they can prove things about the code, even if it is at a higher level of abstraction.

A prompt isn't an abstraction. Say you evaluate an llm completely deterministically. Fixed seed for the sampling, or maybe zero temperature. You give the prompt to an engineer and ask them what it does. He can't really say for sure. 'Try "compiling it". It doesn't work? Well try adjusting your prompt a bit. How? I have no idea; try renaming some variable to shirley or something see what pops out.'

because it is not actually trying to prove anything about its outputs, setting the temperature to zero will just ensure it always makes the same mistake when "compiling" english into code.

A compiler simply always preserves semantics of its input. Even when randomness is used (ex. possibly during register allocation).