rclabs

We can fully solve 'code' in the sense we can model every single interaction and then use that specification to produce another program that does the exact same thing, and then based on inputs, it should be possible to cull that tree of possibilities even more.

That is my hope anyway, apart from that, I do think there is an inherent laziness in business to not mess with the machine that makes money.

I remember explaining software to someone, and I explained that it was like a sandpit, every day - it is cleared, you make shapes, lines, add rocks, toys - surely, at the end of the day, it gets cleared, and starts again new the next day.

What remains are the lessons we learnt, the sand is a medium through which we express ourselves.

I remember as a teenager trying to understand what made rally cars go bang-bang, by modifying the ignition timing among other things, those gases hit a hot exhaust manifold where they create a mini explosion that keeps turbo spooled.

I was working on a 3D CAD software called OpenSCAD, there is this quirk I hated, which is when it's rendering all UI stops responding, there is no cancel button too. So I asked it to "implement the renderer in a separate thread with feedback and the ability to cancel".

It's written in C++ / QT, and can't remember the threading model, I knew Codex ~ version 4 and generally coding agents were excellent at Web type stuff - so I didn't expect much, but it did an alright job.

It was able to build loops of write/compile/verify loops - in the end though, the app would crash, with more work I could probably ask it to debug what was happening.

hell to the no, in between coding sessions, I go out on plenty of sidebars about random topics that help me, the prompter understand the problem more. Prompts in this way are entirely related to context (pre-knowledge) that is not available to the LLMs.