i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
-
@porglezomp you'll love Fig. 6
@whitequark @porglezomp I'm spitting out my drink at j++ → j--. Holy shit.
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark you know where there's a ready source of additional words? you surely will not regret sourcing additional words.
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
Got a link? -
Got a link?
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark not a paper *deliberately* about genetic algorithms, then?
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark "Code style generally does not interfere
with the code semantics and executability"; but we present novel methods for it to do so! -
this isn't satire, this is real research published by IEEE/ACM
@whitequark So let me get this straight, IEEE thinks you should count it as a win if rewriting your code by vibing it has less than 15% better odds than a literal coinflip of reproducibility?
edited for clarity and to fix a typo
-
this isn't satire, this is real research published by IEEE/ACM
@whitequark @danlyke so … by "reformatted" I assume you mean aesthetically tidied up, with no change in functionality required?
If I got that right: wtf?
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark compare and contrast the Extreme Programming philosophy, in which a code change doesn't count as "refactoring" unless all observable behavior is identical
-
@whitequark @danlyke so … by "reformatted" I assume you mean aesthetically tidied up, with no change in functionality required?
If I got that right: wtf?
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark And this is how research money is lit on fire, I guess. Why else conduct research into ML for a task that has had obvious, deterministic, efficient and well-tested solutions for decades?
-
@porglezomp you'll love Fig. 6
@whitequark @porglezomp This looks like it could join the current crop of "DLSS5 off/DLSS5 on" memes.
-
@whitequark compare and contrast the Extreme Programming philosophy, in which a code change doesn't count as "refactoring" unless all observable behavior is identical
@ireneista TIL that my philosophy is the same as the Extreme Programming philosophy
-
@whitequark compare and contrast the Extreme Programming philosophy, in which a code change doesn't count as "refactoring" unless all observable behavior is identical
@ireneista i like how it starts with this (left) and ends with "here is a variable we think would be good here. Do you like this" (right)
-
@ireneista i like how it starts with this (left) and ends with "here is a variable we think would be good here. Do you like this" (right)
@ireneista starting with "gotofail bad" and ending with making the problem significantly worse, apparently without ever reflecting on this
-
@whitequark And this is how research money is lit on fire, I guess. Why else conduct research into ML for a task that has had obvious, deterministic, efficient and well-tested solutions for decades?
@lu_leipzig I actually really don't like formatters like
blackorrustfmtwhich is why I'm collaborating on research into doing it with ML, but there are ways to do it that never produce a different AST -
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark so excited about astral being acquired...
-
i'm at a loss of words after reading a paper about reformatting code using an ML model that has a measured statistical quantity A_c which says how often the reformatted code behaves the same as the original
the "ideal" (their choice of words) case is 64.2%
@whitequark That's it, these people lose their computer privileges until they take some undergraduate CS theory classes.
-
@lu_leipzig I actually really don't like formatters like
blackorrustfmtwhich is why I'm collaborating on research into doing it with ML, but there are ways to do it that never produce a different AST@whitequark oh, interesting, what do you not like about them? I could imagine a ML model would do a decent job deciding between n equivalent deterministically produced ASTs that vary e.g. w.r.t. indentation on multi-line definitions/calls.
-
@whitequark That's it, these people lose their computer privileges until they take some undergraduate CS theory classes.
@theorangetheme both authors are currently full professors i believe
