Comment by slopinthebag 17 hours ago Source? 5 comments slopinthebag Reply p-e-w 16 hours ago The fact that 99.99% of humans have never used a formal theorem prover? vatsachak 16 hours ago Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.But every time I use Codex unless I specifically give it the abstractions it writes code that is way too specific. DavidSJ 15 hours ago > Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.Since we're being pedantic, it means that there are (approximately) 800,000 people better than it. ;) 1 reply → slopinthebag 16 hours ago How do we know if they’re better or not if they haven’t used one?
p-e-w 16 hours ago The fact that 99.99% of humans have never used a formal theorem prover? vatsachak 16 hours ago Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.But every time I use Codex unless I specifically give it the abstractions it writes code that is way too specific. DavidSJ 15 hours ago > Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.Since we're being pedantic, it means that there are (approximately) 800,000 people better than it. ;) 1 reply → slopinthebag 16 hours ago How do we know if they’re better or not if they haven’t used one?
vatsachak 16 hours ago Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.But every time I use Codex unless I specifically give it the abstractions it writes code that is way too specific. DavidSJ 15 hours ago > Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.Since we're being pedantic, it means that there are (approximately) 800,000 people better than it. ;) 1 reply →
DavidSJ 15 hours ago > Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.Since we're being pedantic, it means that there are (approximately) 800,000 people better than it. ;) 1 reply →
The fact that 99.99% of humans have never used a formal theorem prover?
Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.
But every time I use Codex unless I specifically give it the abstractions it writes code that is way too specific.
> Worse than 0.01% of humans means that there are 8,000,000 people better than it. I know that's being pedantic I understand what you're saying.
Since we're being pedantic, it means that there are (approximately) 800,000 people better than it. ;)
1 reply →
How do we know if they’re better or not if they haven’t used one?