Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pancsta's commentslogin

> It captures the nondeterminism in the order of delivery of communications. The Subsequent transition captures fairness arising from the guarantee of delivery. We provide a denotational semantics for our minimal actor language in terms of the transition relations.

Juicy paper, not to mention the declassification. It really reminds me of asyncmachine.dev which has actors, relations, transitions, and embraces non-determinism.


AI automates deterministic tasks, in a non-deterministic way. Repetitiveness just gives you a pipeline.


And its in Go, so no package management joke involved. I will integrate it into my debugger, thx for the link!


Workflow reproducibility with AI is tricky and needs an additional layer and a state machine. Im currently working on that, but for now all you can see is some tech demos and a bot https://ai-gents.work


Im curious, have you considered using tamago instead of tinygo? https://github.com/usbarmory/tamago


Wow. I didn’t know about this, thanks, what the difference and benefits of using this instead of TinyGo?


It's the Go compiler, not LLVM (AFAIR). So greater compatibility, but only for ARM.


Cool! Thanks, I will take a look and perhaps I will migrate from TinyGo to Tamago.

If you want to discuss it welcome to the Devlog: https://devforum.play.date/t/golang-for-playdate-compiler-sd...


> tiny … language designed to be targeted by coding LLMs

so like Go?

> Key Features; Prefix Notation

wow

NEXT!


Every new language pet project these days claims to be "designed for LLM's", lol. Don't read too much into it. The only language that's really designed for LLM is COBOL, because it was written to read just like English natural language and LLM's are trained by reading lots of English language books.


> I was a top 0.01%

wow


“Residential IP” sounds expensive though…


Scraper proxying is another way to monetize botnets, and I suspect those "providers" are not expensive.


Lame.


You missed the point.

> Simply put, these companies have fallen for a confidence trick. They have built on centuries of received wisdom about the efficacy and reliability of computers, and have been drawn in by highly effective salespeople selling scarcely-believable technological wonders.

Calculators are ok, but LLMs are not calculators.


I see what you mean - it wasn't intended to be a parallel to mechanical calculators.

However, the title implies that they were a trick - otherwise why is the "confidence trick" 400 years old?

I feel like this kind of imprecise use of language is what makes it difficult to interact with LLMs in a meaningful way - perhaps that is the reason the author seems to dismiss the value of them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: