SorteKanin

Already posted earlier, repost

I agree that dependencies and package management is a real problem in programming nowadays, but it is not a problem unique to Rust. In fact, I struggle to name a single popular language nowadays that doesn't have the exact same problems.

It's not so much "But that’s not how you build stable software." It's more like "But that’s not how you build software [at all today]." Modern software is powered by loads of shared packages, that's just how all modern languages work. This is equally true for Rust and Python.

Rust still has the edge here btw. Rust libraries (crates) are often very high quality with very good documentation. The language again helps here a lot, by providing extensive tooling for automatic documentation generation. Documentation in other languages are is far less helpful or poorly written. This is also again something that helps an AI write better code (just as it helps humans write better code).

The packaging also helps elevate Rust to a high-level language, because you can build easily usable abstractions in packages that can be used in simple programs. All the complexity can be hidden away in a crate and suddenly Rust feels more like Python. I think that's actually a good thing from package managers.

Right now everyone is asking their AI agents to rewrite programs in Rust or C or assembly. This is fun, but it’s not a serious attempt at optimization.

C or assembly seems pointless and only for performance. But the reason people (re) write programs in Rust is because Rust as a language has a lot of guardrails that help make a program more stable, more correct. That reliability is the real reason for Rust. The performance is just a cherry on top.

This is actually exactly what you want in a language for AI. This is anecdotal from my side, but in my experience, an AI writing Rust will write far less sloppy crap than an AI writing Python.

Most of the argument against Rust has historically been that prototyping is slow and the language is a bother to write because the compiler makes it hard. But this only holds if humans are the bottleneck for writing the code! Rust therefore has all of the benefits but basically none of the downsides when having an AI write it.

All of these sound amazing tbh!

Real: Anon can improve himself by going outside.

Straight: Anon talked to women.

The rules of no directories and super-small crates seem kinda silly to me but I guess Google's build system is special enough that it makes sense for them.

How do you know that data is authentic?

How else can you be sure the content is valid though? Lemmy posts are sent as Announces from the community, not from the actor posting the post. The community could just fake a post if you just trust it.

That's not true, you know the data hasn't been tampered with because of HTTP signatures. The fediverse isn't just "yolo, just trust me bro". There are some parts that are a bit more towards that side (particularly with groups on Lemmy) but I don't think this should be.

It in fact would, because there would be no incentive to keep it like it is - it would never have been made so bad if it was a democratic decision.

Facebook and Co. is bad today because there's a conflict of interest between users and shareholders, and Zuckerberg chose the shareholders cause they line his pockets. This conflict would not exist if it was democratic.

deeply antisocial

It doesn't really have to be. The problem is that the profits that comes from that machine are not spread among the working people - that would be the social way to implement it.

Rogue AI is akin to a car handbrake failing.

The handbrake is a critical security feature of cars to make sure the car doesn't roll downhill and kill someone. If a handbrake failed to stop the car, we would put the blame squarely on the car manufacturer and we would require strict standards and regulations for car handbrakes.

Containing an AI system with proper security measures is the same. It is not "rogue AI", it is "insufficient and careless security" by the AI company in question. If those security measures fail, of course the blame sits at the AI company.

If a car handbrake fails, we would not be talking about a "rogue car". That's ridiculous.