I'd wager a lot of money that the huge majority of software engineers are not aware of almost any transformations that an optimizing compiler does. Especially after decades of growth in languages where most of the optimization is done in JIT rather than a traditional compilation process.
The big thing here is that the transformations maintain the clearly and rigorously defined semantics such that even if an engineer can't say precisely what code is being emitted, they can say with total confidence what the output of that code will be.
> the huge majority of software engineers are not aware of almost any transformations that an optimizing compiler does
They may not, but they can be. Buy a book like "Engineering a Compiler", familiarize yourself with the Optimization chapters, study some papers and the compiler source code (most are OSS). Optimization techniques are not spell locked in a cave under a mountain waiting for the chosen one.
We can always verify the compiler that way, but it's costly. Instead, we trust the developers just like we trust that the restaurant's chef are not poisoning our food.
They can't! They can fairly safely assume that the binary corresponds correctly to the C++ they've written, but they can't actually claim anything about about the output other than "it compiles".
Almost all of these eye watering fines get reduced in further legal action. This has even happened to Tesla before with their news-making hostile workplace suit.
There are really two values expressed in the pledge. "Liberty and justice for all" and "the nation is below God." I'm happy saying that the former is a national value, though it is rarely achieved in practice. The latter... oof.
It is definitely propagandistic. Even if we ignore the religious component, it more expresses an idea that "liberty and justice for all" is already achieved rather than being a goal to strive for.
It is funny to hear them complain about a lack of educational children's programming while... destroying the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and regularly shitting on people from Mr Rogers to Miss Rachel on Fox News.
Andrej is an extremely effective communicator and educator. But I don't agree that he is one of the most significant AI pioneers in history. His research contributions are significant but not exceptional compared to other folks around him at the time. He got famous for free online courses, not his research. His work at Tesla was not exactly a rousing success.
Today I see him as a major influence in how people, especially tech people, think about AI tools. That's valuable. But I don't really think it makes him a pioneer.
You can debate the meaning of the word pioneer but think of it this way: OpenAI created this new AI boom, and Andrej is a co-founder of the company that did that.
Would you say that Musk is one of the most significant AI pioneers in history? I don't personally believe that founding the organization is more meaningful than doing the actual work.
Andrej got famous because of his educational content. He's a smart dude but his research wasn't incredibly unique amongst his cohort at Stanford. He created publicly available educational content around ML that was high quality and got hugely popular. This is what made him a huge name in ML, which he then successfully leveraged into positions of substantial authority in his post-grad career.
He is a very effective communicator and has a lot of people listening to him. And while he is definitely more knowledgeable than most people, I don't think that he is uniquely capable of seeing the future of these technologies.
How does "claw" capture this? Other than being derived from a product with this name, the word "claw" doesn't seem to connect to persistence, scheduling, or inter-agent communication at all.
The big thing here is that the transformations maintain the clearly and rigorously defined semantics such that even if an engineer can't say precisely what code is being emitted, they can say with total confidence what the output of that code will be.
reply