• Flipper@feddit.org
    115·
    2 个月前

    Has the same vibes as anthropic creating a C compiler which passes 99% of compiler tests.

    That last percent is really important. At least that last percent are some really specific edge cases right?

    Description:
    When compiling the following code with CCC using -std=c23:

    bool is_even(int number) {
   return number % 2 == 0;
}

    the compiler fails to compile due to bool, true, and false being unrecognized. The same code compiles correctly with GCC and Clang in C23 mode.

    Source

    Well fuck.

    • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
      26·
      2 个月前

      If this wasn’t 100% vibe coded, it would be pretty cool.

      A c compiler written in rust, with a lot of basics supported, an automated test suite that compiles well known c projects. Sounds like a fun project or academic work.

    • sus@programming.dev
      4·
      2 个月前

      The incredible thing is this is actually the result of an explicit design decision.

      The compiler accepts most GCC flags. Unrecognized flags (e.g., architecture- specific -m flags, unknown -f flags) are silently ignored so ccc can serve as a drop-in GCC replacement in build systems.

      They’re so committed to vibing that they’d prefer if the compiler just does random shit to make it easier to shove it haphazardly into a build pipeline.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    2 个月前

    My favorite part of this is that they test it up to 99999 and we see that it fails for 99991, so that means somewhere in the test they actually implemented a properly working function.

    • frank@sopuli.xyz
      29·
      2 个月前

      No, it’s always guessing false and 99991 is prime so it isn’t right. This isn’t the output of the program but the output of the program compared with a better (but probably not faster) isprime program

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.worldEnglish
        35·
        2 个月前

        Yes, that’s what I said. They wrote another test program, with a correct implementation of IsPrime in order to test to make sure the pictured one produced the expected output.

          • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
            21·
            2 个月前

            I mean people underestimate how usefull lookup tables are. A lookup table of primes for example is basically always just better except the one case where you are searching for primes which is more maths than computer programming anyways. The modern way is to abstract and reimplement everything when there are much cheaper and easier ways of doing it.

            • ozymandias@sh.itjust.works
              5·
              2 个月前

              more maths than computer programming anyways

              Computer programming is a subset of maths and was invented by a mathematition, originally to solve a maths problem…

              • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
                4·
                2 个月前

                Yeah but they slowly develop to be their own fields. You wouldnt argue that physics is math either. Or that chemistry could technically be called a very far branch of philosophy. Computer programing, physics, etc are the applied versions of math. You are no longer studying math, you are studying something else with the help of math. Not that it matters much, just makes distinguising between them easier. You can draw the line anywhere but people do generally have a somewhat shared idea of where that lies.

          • draco_aeneus@mander.xyzEnglish
            3·
            2 个月前

            For prime numbers, since they’re quite difficult to calculate and there’s not that many of them, that’s what’s most common.

    • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      9·
      2 个月前

      That’s a legitimate thing to do if you have a slow implementation that’s easy to verify and a fast implementation that isn’t.

  • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    20·
    2 个月前

    I’m struggling to follow the code here. I’m guessing it’s C++ (which I’m very unfamiliar with)

    bool is_prime(int x) {
    return false;
}

    Wouldn’t this just always return false regardless of x (which I presume is half the joke)? Why is it that when it’s tested up to 99999, it has a roughly 95% success rate then?

    • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
      30·
      2 个月前

      I suppose because about 5% of numbers are actually prime numbers, so false is not the output an algorithm checking for prime numbers should return

      • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        11·
        2 个月前

        Oh I’m with you, the tests are precalculated and expect a true to return on something like 99991, this function as expected returns false, which throws the test into a fail.

        Thank you for that explanation

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      28·
      2 个月前

      That’s the joke. Stochastic means probabilistic. And this “algorithm” gives the correct answer for the vast majority of inputs

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    2 个月前

    If you scaled it based on the size of the integer you could get that up to 99.9% test accuracy. Like if it’s less than 10 give it 50% odds of returning false, if it’s under 50 give it 10% odds, otherwise return false.

  • Kekzkrieger@feddit.orgEnglish
    9·
    2 个月前

    If you think this is bad and not nearly enough accuracy to be called correct, AI is much worse than this.

    It’s not just wrong a lot of times or hallucinates but you can’t pinpoint why or how it produces the result and if you keep putting the same data in, the output may still vary.

  • zbyte64
    4·
    2 个月前

    Pssh, mine uses a random number generator for odd numbers to return true 4% of the time to achieve higher accuracy and a bettor LLM metaphor

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    1·
    2 个月前

    I mean, an application could exist where this isn’t even wrong. Maybe as a “subroutine” of another algorithm that only needs a truly composite number most of the time to work.

    That this reads as a joke says a lot about what application we’re intuitively expecting.

    Edit: Not sure why this is being downvoted.