[pcloadlett3r]

> it's probably good enough to use, yea.

Not for general purpose use, only for demo.

> that reasonably working software of equivalent complexity is within reach for $20k to solve

But if this can't come close to replacing GCC and can't be modified without introducing bugs then it hasn't proven this yet. I learned some new hacks from the paper and that's great and all but from my experiencing of trying to harness even 4 claude sessions in parallel on a complex task it just goes off the rails in terms of coherence. I'll try the new techniques but my intuition is that its not really as good as you are selling it.

[ajross]

> Not for general purpose use, only for demo.

What does that mean, though? I mean, it's already meeting a very high quality bar by booting at all and passing those tests. No, it doesn't beat existing solutions on all the checkboxes, but that's not what the demo is about.

The point being demonstrated is that if you need a "custom compiler" or something similar for your own new, greenfield requirement, you can have it at pretty-clearly-near-shippable quality in two weeks for $20k.

And if people can't smell the disruption there, I don't know what to say.

[pcloadlett3r]

Is it really shippable if it is strictly worse than the thing it copied. Do you know anyone who would use a vibe coded compiler that cant be modified without introducing regressions (as the researcher admitted)?

[vuciuc]

> you can have it at pretty-clearly-near-shippable quality in two weeks for $20k.

if you spend months writing a tight spec, tests and have a better version of the compiler around to use when everything else fails.