This has very quickly become an uninteresting, and often even unconvincing critique. Especially on this site where it is levelled at essentially every blog post submitted.
Maybe true, maybe not. If it actually says something, which this one does, I just don't care. And I'm hardly an AI cheerleader
It’s one of those “you criticise society and yet you participate in society… curious” critiques. Also, I saw some AI detector flagging Bible passages as 97% AI generated. It doesn’t inspire confidence.
> As has been mentioned the goal was a port so they "could" eventually rewrite most of it to be idiomatic rust.
They may have said that, but quite clearly the value they actually get out of it is getting the headline "AI reimplements complex, broadly used software in 2 weeks, but makes it way better because it's rust now" in front of a million people's eyes, only 1% of whom will ever find out it was mostly fluff
> quite clearly the value they actually get out of it is getting the headline
This is entirely disingenuous. Jarred has already made it clear what value they get out of moving off of Zig. Yes they used AI heavily to attempt this goal but I don't see what the big issue is. They haven't even released it yet and Anthropic themselves have said 0 about this.
The "headlines" thus far are really just people completely uninvolved with Bun and with all to gain by perpetrating "AI BAD".
My honest take: the big issue isn't "what if it goes wrong" its the fear that a migration of this size works out of the box and being done almost entirely by AI.
When we're talking lab revenue, we're taking what companies are spending on AI.
The question is not whether companies are investing in AI, it's whether they're getting anything in return. Or, whether execs are just as anxious and confused about the story being sold as everyone else, taking the ludicrous amount of capital being put behind it as evidence that there's a "there" there, and hopping on the train out of pure FOMO and hedging, whether they're actually getting anything out of it at all.
If we start to see spend go down because projects fail and companies run the ROI calculation and determine it's not worth it, then ill stand corrected and happily admit that
I'm not sure what's different about my setup (just a Vaultwarden deployment hosted behind Tailscale, connected using the official Chrome extension and Android app), but I've never once encountered the long unlock delays due to sync attempts. It's always unlocked instantly. And the app is frequently unable to connect since I'm not always on the tablet.
The point is to decide what success is for yourself. Learn everything you can about the thing you might decide to automate. But think before you automate and how you do so because it could cause more harm then good.
Why isn't it practical? In my life, I've encountered many SWEs that have changed careers. I've met them in national parks working as rangers. In real estate, grocery store butchers, and yak ranchers. Yet I've never once encountered a SWE that was once doing something non-technical and decided to switch.
Purely anecdotal, I know. But still, I prefer to think that all those people discovered this practical advice and are far happier for it. I've never met one that regretted their decision.
Oh, I would consider becoming a park ranger as well, but as a european, I also did not had to go deep in dept, to become a SWE.
And a professor should take that into account and give practical advice. In the real world, solving haskell challenes (of which the prof is fan of) is unfortunately not that useful. People have real needs for working software to solve their real pain points. Not to worship code quality.
Some projects need obviously better code quality (airplanes, medical equipment..) - but not all of them. And if you want to have sacred code when coding a crude throw away app .. you won't get enough money for that. And positions for academics are limited.
The problem with these attempts always seems to be that you can see in dimensions 1-3, but never in dimension 4, so any movement or exploration along that axis is always just blind fumbling. The extra dimension is not equivalent to the others
The only answer would seem to be an extra axis of rotation, but (a) doesnt work well with existing input methods, and (b) would be even more of a brain-breaker
Ordinarily, a 3D scene rendered in 2D only allows you to see a cone from your eye up to the first surface the ray encounters, thus defining the 2D projection which you see.
But you can make the surfaces transparent so the ray continues, and each additional surface adds a bit to the final pixel. This can look like a mess if you stand still but if you wiggle your movement left and right (or any other direction), your brain suddenly manages to process it into the full 3D structure.
no, you do see along the fourth dimension when you're pointing that way. i think you have a deep confusion here actually, but i can't really help because i don't actually understand your confusion. but, for whatever help it will be:
- all the dimensions are treated the same
- you only actually see two dimensions.
(it goes without saying that it's actually me who's confused.)
I think you could approximate a 4d projection onto a 3d display, much like we approximate a 3d projection onto a 2d display. So perhaps one could enjoy a fun and intuitive game of 4d doom if you have an appropriately fancy volumetric display. Pity they're so rare/expensive.
I've commented elsewhere about an 4D maze (https://urticator.net/maze/ - I am not the author) which mimics this by creating two 3D retinas in red/blue stereoscopic mode - when you cross your eyes just right you see a single volumetric 3D retina.
"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.
Maybe true, maybe not. If it actually says something, which this one does, I just don't care. And I'm hardly an AI cheerleader