[josu]

>So my verdict is that it's great for code analysis, and it's fantastic for injecting some book knowledge on complex topics into your programming, but it can't tackle those complex problems by itself.

I don't think you've seen the full potential. I'm currently #1 on 5 different very complex computer engineering problems, and I can't even write a "hello world" in rust or cpp. You no longer need to know how to write code, you just need to understand the task at a high level and nudge the agents in the right direction. The game has changed.

- https://highload.fun/tasks/3/leaderboard

- https://highload.fun/tasks/12/leaderboard

- https://highload.fun/tasks/15/leaderboard

- https://highload.fun/tasks/18/leaderboard

- https://highload.fun/tasks/24/leaderboard

[johndough]

All the naysayer here have clearly no idea. Your large matrix multiplication implementation is quite impressive! I have set up a benchmark loop and let GPT-5.1-Codex-Max experiment for a bit (not 5.2/Opus/Gemini, because they are broken in Copilot), but it seems to be missing something crucial. With a bit of encouragement, it has implemented:

    - padding from 2000 to 2048 for easier power-of-two splitting
    - two-level Winograd matrix multiplication with tiled matmul for last level
    - unrolled AVX2 kernel for 64x64 submatrices
    - 64 byte aligned memory
    - restrict keyword for pointers
    - better compiler flags (clang -Ofast -march=native -funroll-loops -std=c++17)

But yours is still easily 25 % faster. Would you be willing to write a bit about how you set up your evaluation and which tricks Claude used to solve it?

[josu]

Thank you. Yeah, I'm doing all those things, which do get you close to the top. The rest of things I'm doing are mostly micro-optimizations such as finding a way to avoid AVX→SSE transition penalty (1-2% improvement).

But I don't want to spoil the fun. The agents are really good at searching the web now, so posting the tricks here is basically breaking the challenge.

For example, chatGPT was able to find Matt's blog post regarding Task 1, and that's what gave me the largest jump: https://blog.mattstuchlik.com/2024/07/12/summing-integers-fa...

Interestingly, it seems that Matt's post is not on the training data of any of the major LLMs.

[zarzavat]

How are you qualified to judge its performance on real code if you don't know how to write a hello world?

Yes, LLMs are very good at writing code, they are so good at writing code that they often generate reams of unmaintainable spaghetti.

When you submit to an informatics contest you don't have paying customers who depend on your code working every day. You can just throw away yesterday's code and start afresh.

Claude is very useful but it's not yet anywhere near as good as a human software developer. Like an excitable puppy it needs to be kept on a short leash.

[josu]

I know what's like running a business, and building complex systems. That's not the point.

I used highload as an example because it seems like an objective rebuttal to the claim that "but it can't tackle those complex problems by itself."

And regarding this:

"Claude is very useful but it's not yet anywhere near as good as a human software developer. Like an excitable puppy it needs to be kept on a short leash"

Again, a combination of LLM/agents with some guidance (from someone with no prior experience in this type of high performing architecture) was able to beat all human software developers that have taken these challenges.

[VMG]

> Claude is very useful but it's not yet anywhere near as good as a human software developer. Like an excitable puppy it needs to be kept on a short leash.

The skill of "a human software developer" is in fact a very wide distribution, and your statement is true for a ever shrinking tail end of that

[FeepingCreature]

> How are you qualified to judge its performance on real code if you don't know how to write a hello world?

The ultimate test of all software is "run it and see if it's useful for you." You do not need to be a programmer at all to be qualified to test this.

[throw1235435]

If that is true; then all the commentary around software people having jobs still due to "taste" and other nice words is just that. Commentary. In the end the higher level stuff still needs someone to learn it (e.g. learning ASX2 architecture, knowing what tech to work with); but it requires IMO significantly less practice then coding which in itself was a gate. The skill morphs more into a tech expert rather than a coding expert.

I'm not sure what this means for the future of SWE's though yet. I don't see higher levels of staff in big large businesses bothering to do this, and at some scale I don't see founders still wanting to manage all of these agents, and processes (got better things to do at higher levels). But I do see the barrier of learning to code gone; meaning it probably becomes just like any other job.

[ModernMech]

None of the problems you've shown there are anything close to "very complex computer engineering problems", they're more like "toy problems with widely-known solutions given to students to help them practice for when they encounter actually complex problems".

[josu]

I think you misunderstood, it's not about solving the problem, is about finding the most efficient solution. Give it a shot, and see if you can get to the top 10 on any task.

[dajoh]

>I'm currently #1 on 5 different very complex computer engineering problems

Ah yes, well known very complex computer engineering problems such as:

* Parsing JSON objects, summing a single field

* Matrix multiplication

* Parsing and evaluating integer basic arithmetic expressions

And you're telling me all you needed to do to get the best solution in the world to these problems was talk to an LLM?

[josu]

Lol, the problem is not finding a solution, the problem is solving it in the most efficient way.

If you think you can beat an LLM, the leaderboard is right there.