qarl

If you have an actual criticism of my argument you'll need to be more clear to be understood.

Well - not really a circle. I keep saying the same thing over and over and you keep throwing arguments at it, unsuccessfully.

Right.

And what I'm saying is I refuse to believe the Linux kernel approval procedures are that inefficient. Therefore, your belief "bottleneck was most likely not mechanical code changes" is most likely incorrect.

It would be interesting to get the actual answer to this question.

EDIT: Substantially changing your argument after posting isn't nice. But to answer your charge - no - I never made that claim.

The lag there is not due to the review time. How many maintainers were involved? 300? Because I'm still finding it hard to understand how the work of 300 people handling 300 commits cannot be parallelized into months (per your own stat.)

My apologies. I did not want to be downvoted for promoting my own material.

https://github.com/qarl/qscreensaver

An LLM is not a mechanical automated system.

Pretty sure that's exactly what LLMs in coding harnesses are.

Yes, I understand the difference in rigor.

I refuse to believe the six year delay here was getting people to test a patch.

Which, actually, Claude Code will also do quite well.

Well - except in this conversation it's incredibly relevant. It took six years to do this work when the work is likely mostly mechanical and could have been done much more quickly and safely with an automated system.

I thought automation would be interesting to HN - given the context and the fact it was not used.

It's a shame you're misrepresenting what is actually going on.

In another comment here I explained that I have run a test: asking Claude Code to add a substantial feature to 270 different C programs.

Despite your beliefs - it went extremely well.

I ran a test where I added a "light" mode to xscreensaver: unique changes to over 270 different C programs.

It mostly did an amazing job in a short period of time.

EDIT: Of course I get downvoted for saying this. HN isn't interested in reality any more.

Am I going to be the first person to ask this after five hours? Really?

Wouldn't this work be extremely easy to implement with an LLM coder?

To be fair - I'd be more shocked by the result that a physical process can solve NP complete problems.

If that were true, I'd have expected Mother Nature to have exploited it a long time ago.

Ooooohhh! Yes, now I understand why I was getting those downvotes.

Thank for you explaining what you meant by "you’re conflating nationality with hosting model." It makes so much more sense now. You meant "But with the options on Bedrock, DeepSeek fighting for a position somewhere in the middle of the cost/quality spectrum."

Yes, that is the answer, and you are not full of sh!t.

Azure serves DeepSeek V4 Pro, about 10X cheaper than GPT-5.5.

My most sincere apologies for shortening "the vast majority of Chinese models" to simply "Chinese models".

I can see now why I was being downvoted - you have explained it eloquently.

(Your cost analysis is flawed and irrelevant. Azure serves V4 Pro.)

The model we're discussing (Deepseek) is open weight.

Well - yes - we're on the internet. You always have a choice to run your software in foreign countries.

But it's still erroneous to claim that it isn't a choice.

The real advantage of the Chinese models is that they do not phone home at all. They run locally unlike their US competitors.

So odd that your erroneous criticism is at the top of HN.

EDIT: I'd love to hear my downvoters' objections. Is it possible that the mechanism that is promoting erroneous information is also demoting its correction?

There's no important difference, you have no evidence for LLMs being a "someone" any more than you do for a god existing.

Well... When I ask god if he exists he has never responded to me.

So I would argue that your "any more evidence" is off by several orders of magnitude.

These are the sorts of errors in logic that make me think that people have an undue amount of emotion to discuss the issue rationally. And that's probably why I get attacked.

But hey. Maybe it's something else? Maybe everyone is on their period?

I think I've been pretty clear about the uncertainty and my decision to err on the side of caution.

But hey - you do you.

I guess I just don't understand why you guys seem to hate on me - because I've decided to be extra careful?

Makes me wonder if maybe there's something else going on, you know?

I think you're right.

The important difference being - Pascal's wager is about saving your own skin, and this is about not stepping on someone else.

I'm not sure you actually agree with OP. He believes that conscious machines are not possible.

I'm pretty sure Turing knew he was making a philosophical argument.

Mistakes come from bad arguments.

Heh. Well then, you probably shouldn't waste your time talking to me!

Take care, friend.

Heh. And yet it's widely respected.

How odd the crowd is here tonight. Very aggressively disagreeable.

Heh. It's not really a test. It's a line of argument.

I rest my case. :)

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a20ca50-f8a8-83e8-8396-13d71c070d...

Well, if it's any interest to you, the experts on the matter agree that the issue is unresolved.

So in the meantime, I'm going to err on the side of caution.

You do you.

I'm sorry, we must be misunderstanding each other.

You have a nice day.