Arvid Lundmark
speaker
98 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Sep 2024
last heard Sep 2024
Arvid Lundmark’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
We'll probably have like four or five different kinds of diffs. So we have optimized the diff for the autocomplete. So that has a different diff interface than when you're reviewing larger blocks of code. And then we're trying to optimize another diff thing for when you're doing multiple different files.
And sort of at a high level, the difference is for when you're doing autocomplete, it should be really, really fast to read. Actually, it should be really fast to read in all situations. But in autocomplete, it's sort of, you're really like your eyes focused in one area. You can't be in too many, the humans can't look in too many different places.
On the interface side. So it currently has this box on the side. So we have the current box. And if it tries to delete code in some place and tries to add other code, it tries to show you a box on the side. You can maybe show it if we pull it up on cursor.com.
So that, that box, it was like three or four different attempts at trying to make this, this thing work where first the attempt was like these blue crossed out lines. So before it was a box on the side, it used to show you the code to delete by showing you like, uh, like Google doc style, you would see like a line through it. Then you would see the new code. That was super distracting.
And then we tried many different, you know, there was sort of deletions, there was trying to red highlight. Then the next iteration of it, which is sort of funny, you would hold on Mac the option button. So it would sort of highlight a region of code to show you that there might be something coming. So maybe in this example, like the input and the value would all get blue.
And the blue was to highlight that the AI had a suggestion for you. So instead of directly showing you the thing, it would show you that the AI, it would just hint that the AI had a suggestion. And if you really wanted to see it, you would hold the option button and then you would see the new suggestion. Then if you release the option button, you would then see your original code.
Yeah.
Again, it's just non-intuitive. I think that's the key thing.
So I think the general question is like, Matt, these models are going to get much smarter. As the models get much smarter, the changes they will be able to propose are much bigger. So as the changes gets bigger and bigger and bigger, the humans have to do more and more and more verification work. It gets more and more and more hard. Like it's just, you need to help them out.
It's sort of, I don't want to spend all my time reviewing code.
Contrary to popular perception. It is not a deterministic algorithm.
Maybe we should talk about how to make it fast. Yeah.
And then the advantage is that while it's streaming, you can just also start reviewing the code before it's done, so there's no big loading screen. So maybe that is part of the advantage.
I think the interesting riff here is something like, like speculation is a fairly common idea nowadays. It's like not only in language models, I mean, there's obviously speculation in CPUs and there's like speculation for databases and speculation all over the place.
By the way, that's like a really, really hard, it's like critically important detail, like how different like benchmarks are versus like real coding. Where real coding, it's not interview style coding. It's you're doing these, You know, humans are saying, like, half-broken English sometimes, and sometimes you're saying, like, oh, do what I did before. Sometimes you're saying...
you know, go add this thing and then do this other thing for me and then make this UI element. And then, you know, it's just like a lot of things are sort of context dependent. You really want to like understand the human and then do what the human wants as opposed to sort of this, maybe the way to put it is sort of abstractly is the interview problems are very well-specified.
they lean a lot on specification while the human stuff is less specified. Yeah.
Well, it's not like conspiracy theory as much. They're just, they're like, they're, you know, humans, humans are humans and there's, there's these details and, you know, you're doing like this crazy amount of flops and, you know, chips are messy and man, you can just have bugs. Like bugs are, it's, it's hard to overstate how hard bugs are to avoid. Yeah.
So, I mean, one of the things we do is, it's like a recent addition, is try to suggest files that you can add. So while you're typing, one can guess what the uncertainty is and maybe suggest that like, you know, maybe you're writing your API And we can guess using the commits that you've made previously in the same file that the client and the server is super useful.
And there's like a hard technical problem of how do you resolve it across all commits? Which files are the most important given your current prompt? And we're still sort of initial version is ruled out and I'm sure we can make it much more accurate. It's very experimental.
Showing 21–40 of 98 · page 2 of 5
← Previous
Next →