undefined

points

[-]

You dismiss "pattern matching" as some sort of trivial thing, so why weren't humans able to apply the same pattern matching to find and fix these defects?

by ufo2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They often were able. Fifteen bugs claimed by mythos were bugs that were already fixed, which the model plagiarized from git history or the kernel mailing list.

by devy2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> You dismiss "pattern matching" as some sort of trivial thing

I didn't say that - Greg said it in the talk. You interpreted wrong. However, human are a few orders of magnitude slower than agents. Our context windows is definitely less than 1 million tokens (I believe, heck we don't even know how our brain works)

by panarky1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

By quoting this segment, I inferred that you agreed with Greg.

If you disagree with Greg, then I apologize for inadvertently criticizing you personally.

My point stands, that we're back to debating some metaphysical understanding of what "real intelligence" is when the real standard should be "does it do a better job than humans at this specific task"?

I don't care if the Waymo isn't "truly" intelligent, it drives better than I do, that's a very good thing.

We're all pattern matchers, and if the machine pattern matcher is can find defects and vulns that human pattern matchers can't, that's also a very good thing.

by Gigachad1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Human brains don’t have a context window. The brain just constantly reconfigures itself on new input. The AI people call this “continuous learning” and believe it’s one of the most important things current AIs are missing.