ModernMech
ModernMech on Hacker News
None of this would be happening if we had put this man on trial for espionage and insurrection. We don’t necessarily need more laws we just need to enforce the ones we have against billionaires. We can pass all the laws we want but if they don’t apply to billionaires there’s no country left to save.
True, I’m assuming you’ve already implemented one compiler. You point the ai to that and instruct the ai machine “bootstrap the language using this reference compiler”.
This is not relevent, as there's no proposed standard here, nor any reason everyone should standardize on a particular config format.
In a reductive sense, yes. But practically, sometimes design considerations are made so the language is easier to parse or implement, which at the same time make it harder for humans to parse and understand. When someone says it's "made for humans" they mean they decided to make it easier for humans to read and write, often with the tradeoff that the parser and compiler will be more complicated.
Even if we accept the premise that humans don’t code anymore, it doesn’t follow that programming languages are not needed - the AI machines are writing more code than humanity has ever produced. So if anything, the need for better languages is more urgent than ever.
These days with LLM bootstrapping the compiler is a lot like using YACC for the parser. You just point the LLM at your compiler spec, tell it "bootstrap this" and then it does.
It's not a "problem", it's just the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
The main objection I used to have was there are infinite things to do when building a programming language, it's already enough to build 1 compiler, you probably shouldn't also build a second as your main stress test of the language.
That said if your languages is for building compilers you'd probably want to do it. Otherwise, basically no one writes compilers, and if they are they're writing them for their own languages in something much more mature than your nascent language.
These days I think all languages should try to do it with an LLM because, why not? That also means bootstrapping a compiler isn't exactly an impressive feat anymore, most new languages are doing it now.
Computational sociology? I imagine a model of society could come out of this, then you could create hypothetical societies and see how they behave.
This says more about how much you value intelligence than whether it takes intelligence to get elected in the US.
We're not talking about God, we're talking about a machine, here on Earth, we can poke and prod and explore and test. It's perfectly within the realm of logic to prove it can't do things. Can you prove the AI machine cannot solve the halting problem for arbitrary programs? Yes, that's a negative you can prove, so your objection about proving negatives needs qualification.
Asking you to justify a limitation you asserted doesn't mean I cannot be convinced. You're asserting Kernighan's law holds for AI, I'm saying there are other ways to debug than applications of cleverness. Does throwing more attempts at that spaghetti find vulnerabilities even when the thing that wrote it can't easily understand it? I'm not saying AI must be able to do it because you can't prove it can't. I'm asking what supports your claim that it can't.
No I gave up on arguing with you because I've already made my point perfectly clearly, you've made yours as well, there's nothing left to say without going in circles. The only reason I engaged further was because you attributed your words to me, which I found quite rude. If you're not going to apologize for that, then please just move on like I asked you 2 posts ago. Again, have a nice day.
This is a vibecoded project, not a resource for learning modeling for formal verification.
Well the AI machines don't have to rely on cleverness to find vulnerabilities, so maybe they're not limited by Kernighan's Law. Does throwing virtually unlimited sufficiently clever monkeys at spaghetti code find these vulnerabilities better than humans? Can you prove they can't?
Despite what I said and against my better judgement, I'm replying because I can't abide you putting words in my mouth:
> I never used the word "invasion", you're the only one using it
The first characterization of this process as an invasion in this thread was your post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50306566
> your claim is "the numbers look bad for the Democrats, but they never explicitly said they want the country to be invaded with illegals, they just did it"
"Invaded with illegals" is the characterization you chose. Please don't put your words in my mouth. Have a nice day.
They don't think they're going to fail or else they wouldn't be doing it. But they do think they need a government moat to succeed. Whether that's framed as a "bailout" or "regulation", it's still the government stepping in to save the day.
In terms of "act responsibly" what I mean in this case is the perception that there's a lot of money flowing in circles here, where customers are investors and investors are customers and competitors. That's how I see this whole party crashing down if it does, if there's too much creative accounting going on when the music stops, some companies might not find a chair to sit on.
You mean the process the Trump administration is arguing they don't have to follow, and have actually circumvented to deport people as fast as possible just so they don't have a chance to argue their case in front of a judge? Their whole position is the executive branch is the judge, jury, and executioner of deportation proceedings, so they can be (and have been in violation of court orders) done summarily.
"The department actions in this case are unquestionably in violation of this court's order."
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-appeals-court-rejects-trump... "The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process"
https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/unquestio... Homeland Security's interpretation of immigration law would: "deny access to that protection to a substantial swath of noncitizens who are sent to third countries with no notice of their destination"
https://abcnews.com/US/slamming-trump-administration-appeals...Anti immigrant crusaders have wrought lawlessness upon this country far worse than lawbreaking done by any immigrant illegal or otherwise.
You made a claim you can't support. Just move on. The numbers you're citing don't prove what you claimed, and they also don't support "an invasion of illegals" that's a political characterization. Net positive migration does not mean they want as many as possible, even if the numbers are larger than you want. You can ask ChatGPT for further explanation if you're still confused as to why, I'm not engaging with you further.
No, these companies know they don't have a moat, so have been laying the groundwork for a bailout (e.g. Altman pushing the idea of "Universal Basic Compute", essentially a forced subscription to ChatGPT through your taxes).
The politicians rising through the ranks now lived through 2008 as young adults, and they watched politicians cutting checks to companies who ruined the economy, only to emerge richer; while regular folk got foreclosed on and never recovered. They heard the rise of the phrase "too big to fail".
Well now we have a group of companies that clearly want to be too big, so now is exactly the time to make clear to them they aren't too big to fail. Maybe, just maybe if they know they can't count on a UBC bailout on the other side of a bubble pop, they will act a little more responsibly (which they have not demonstrated they're capable of that to date).
You first: would you feel punished if you were forcibly taken from your home and relocated to a country you've never been?
There are two axes here: whether something is a punishment, whether it's deserved. You've moved from arguing it's not a punishment to arguing it's deserved. So you need to give a straight answer.
Anyway, your posts have too many exclamation points and curses, so I don't want to engage anymore. Have a nice day.
Agreed, this is my unpopular opinion. The “moral framing” asks us to accept the absurd idea of “intellectual property”, and that someone who drew a picture without crediting or compensating everyone they leaned on to get the last 1%, somehow owns 100% of the proceeds thereafter.
AI represents the sum total of human knowledge and everyone who thinks they’re owned compensation for their last mile contributions, which build on centuries of human existence and knowledge-making, are just leaning into the pro capital idea that whoever owns a thing controls a thing. In reality when you put something out into the world, whatever it is, it takes a life of its own and you don’t really get to own or control that.
These artists and programmers and writers think they’re owned compensation because they “own” what they create but they do not. They in fact owe a debt to everyone who came before them they must pay forward. AI took that debt and made it tangible.
You’re arguing that the punishment is deserved, not that it isn’t punishment.
That was "Don't be evil" Google. This is "Do the right thing" Google, completely different. Here, "right" means "what's best for the company" and if that means bending the knee to a wannabe dictator, that's the right thing.
The numbers say Biden's immigration policies contributed to historically high unauthorized immigration, that deportations did not keep pace with arrivals, and that the administration failed to enforce immigration restrictions effectively. They
don't say they wanted unlimited illegal immigration. They
especially don't say that about Obama, who had Bush-level numbers.
What evidence shows that Obama and Biden wanted to actually maximize illegal immigration, as opposed to having different enforcement priorities or failing to control immigration effectively? Noting again that they were ready to pass a bill and sign it into law, but Trump tanked it.
It seems to me if there's a problem, and people want to fix it, but someone says "no", it's that person who wants the problem to persist.
Forcibly moving anyone from their home to another place is always a punishment, and you would absolutely feel the same way if someone did it to you.
Absolutely not.
What I'm saying is this executive has violated the insurrection clause (14th amendment), the 12th amendment, the foreign emoluments clause, the domestic emoluments clause, the take care clause, the first amendment, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, habeas corpus, appropriations clause, taxing power, war powers... he's been on an actual crime spree since 2016 violating campaign laws, extorting foreign countries for bribes, extorting governors for votes, fomenting insurrection, stealing and attempting to sell state secrets, violating the Constitution from beginning to end -- all that doesn't matter.
So then why does immigration law matter? And how does that guy have the moral authority to say anything about anyone violating any laws?
I’m not talking about what they’re thinking, I’m saying why should immigration laws matter when the President is an actual criminal?
The social contract is: the President isn’t above the law. Right now and as long as he’s President, that contract is breached. So do immigration laws matter? I don’t know, because the plain text of the Constitution says those who swear an oath to the Constitution and foment insurrection against the US shall be barred from office. And yet, an insurrectionist is the executive right now, enforcing laws against people he doesn’t like and waiving laws that make him rich. So then why should immigration laws matter at this time? And under what authority?
Because when Trump said “we are going to deport the worst of the worst” people took that to mean criminal gangbangers. Then all of a sudden he’s deporting hairdressers, students, and abuelas and people are understandably surprised Pikachu, saying that’s not what they voted for.
It’s a sleight of hand, they say “the worst of the worst” and what they mean is “all immigrants (not just the illegal ones) are the worst of the worst”
This is why they’re going to lose their majorities next week.