• 1 Post
  • 10 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 20th, 2024

help-circle






  • wjs018@piefed.socialtoTechTakes@awful.systemseating our own dogshit
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I just looked at the first PR out of curiosity, and wow…

    this isn’t integrated with tests

    That’s the part that surprised me the most. It failed the existing automation. Even after prompted to fix the failing tests, it proudly added a commit “fixing” it (it still didn’t pass…something that copilot should really be able to check). Then the dev had to step in and say why the test was failing and how to fix the code to make it pass. With this much handholding all of this could have been done much faster and cleaner without any AI involvement at all.



  • I have a PhD in physics, primarily working on fluids and now I work in industry on fluid dynamics. Having just read the abstract, I can already tell that this paper is one of those that borders philosophical about the author’s view of their field. Nothing wrong with that though as we physicists tend to wax poetic from time to time.

    The question about when we can consider turbulence solved is an interesting one. I still work in the field and for most useful applications of fluid dynamics, I would consider it a solved problem. Not to say that the NS equation is solved analytically, but rather that the field has built up a toolbox of phenomenological models and CFD systems that are more than good enough for the range of scales that we typically work with. The bigger problem for CFD in this space is optimization, an issue where GPUs have proven to be invaluable. Only in the past couple years have the major CFD software packages started supporting GPU computation, speeding things up 2-10x depending on the specifics.

    I think that turbulence is an issue really at the extremes of scales at this point (very tiny, very large, small dt, hypersonic, etc.). Also, I think that it would be difficult in a system with complex forces acting on your fluid, like in a plasma where E&M forces are so significant. So, good luck all you folks working on fusion reactors!


  • The theory that the lead maintainer had (he is an actual software developer, I just dabble), is that it might be a type of reinforcement learning:

    • Get your LLM to create what it thinks are valid bug reports/issues
    • Monitor the outcome of those issues (closed immediately, discussion, eventual pull request)
    • Use those outcomes to assign how “good” or “bad” that generated issue was
    • Use that scoring as a way to feed back into the model to influence it to create more “good” issues

    If this is what’s happening, then it’s essentially offloading your LLM’s reinforcement learning scoring to open source maintainers.


  • Really great piece. We have recently seen many popular lemmy instances struggle under recent scraping waves, and that is hardly the first time its happened. I have some firsthand experience with the second part of this article that talks about AI-generated bug reports/vulnerabilities for open source projects.

    I help maintain a python library and got a bug report a couple weeks back of a user getting a type-checking issue and a bit of additional information. It didn’t strictly follow the bug report template we use, but it was well organized enough, so I spent some time digging into it and came up with no way to reproduce this at all. Thankfully, the lead maintainer was able to spot the report for what it was and just closed it and saved me from further efforts to diagnose the issue (after an hour or two were burned already).