Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Rich's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
David Mankins

@hipsterelectron @mattb @dalias

I the problem is getting a mapping from a textual program description to the intermediate representation. Tge LLMs do their coding tricks by associating code to accompanying discussion and comments. What they want to do is let you use text to describe your problem then have the system shot out plausible code.

I think you’re idea implicitly requires the model to actually have some understanding of what it’s doing.

6 July at 23:18 | Wall-to-wall | Open on tldr.nettime.org
2 comments
d@nny "disc@" mc²

@lain_7 @mattb @dalias to paraphrase @emilymbender, it's just acting as a much worse search engine at that point. erasing copyright/attribution is a positive for the monied interests pushing these machines over ones incorporating any level of domain expertise

6 July at 23:58 | Open on circumstances.run
David Mankins

@hipsterelectron @mattb @dalias @emilymbender

well, that’s how LLMs work, isn’t it? Are you talking instead about a hypothetical system that has some understanding of the semantics (represented, say, in a knowledge base of some sort) of the ASTs and transformations of them?

I’m guessing that getting the semantics into the system might be a challenge.

There was work that tried to move from formal(ish) spec to code in the 80s out 90s. Maybe that stuff could be resurrected, taking advantage of greater computer power and maybe the translation abilities of transformers.

Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you, if so, apologies.

I’ve been wondering if one could use something like the Berkeley parser to parse text into SVO triples that could be turned into assertions the populate (or supplement) a knowledge base, then use that knowledge base to address questions. One nice feature of that is that you could store the provenance of the assertion in your knowledge base, too.

Or maybe i’m 20 years behind the state of the art.

@hipsterelectron @mattb @dalias @emilymbender

well, that’s how LLMs work, isn’t it? Are you talking instead about a hypothetical system that has some understanding of the semantics (represented, say, in a knowledge base of some sort) of the ASTs and transformations of them?

I’m guessing that getting the semantics into the system might be a challenge.

7 July at 0:50 | Open on tldr.nettime.org
Go Up