No announcement yet.

Facebook Is Aiming To Make Compilers Faster Using Machine Learning With CompilerGym

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    After ruined the society Feisbuk wants also ruining the informatics, oh my...


    • #42
      Originally posted by commodore256 View Post
      Otherwise, when you trust magic that you don't know how it works, you get results like this.
      That's not cheating. It did what they asked it to. The problem was in their formulation of the problem and how they trained it.

      The same problem exists with people and even corporations. If you get their incentive structure wrong, you will be in for some nasty surprises.


      • #43
        Originally posted by spanky View Post
        So the existence of Linux in it's current state justifies corporate misdeeds?
        No, they aren't additive. They're more orthogonal, really. I just look at their technical contributions separately from whatever else the company is doing.


        • #44
          Originally posted by ddriver View Post
          Companies like that do not make open source tools as a service to humanity, they do it because the FOSS model mandates it.
          Facebook, as with a lot of these companies, gives away lots of tools & libraries that are standalone, where there's no pre-existing license or anything else forcing their hand. I'm not taking a side; just pointing out a fact.

          Originally posted by ddriver View Post
          So the notion that they'd contribute to FOSS because that's what the "good guys" are doing is foolish on its face, a few useful tools doesn't come even close to redeeming them.
          Who is even making that argument, here? I assume the reasons they voluntarily release FOSS are: due to pressure by their own developers, to attract more developers, and in hopes of getting free testing & bugfixes from the community. If they can also win some good PR, that just icing on the cake.


          • #45
            Originally posted by bregma View Post
            The order of optimization passes is strictly dependent. Changing them could possibly result in no optimization or could result in a semantic change in the generated program. The first is harmless, the second is catastrophic.
            Is there a well-understood and formalizable set of constraints that would prevent the second? If so, then it seems the AI-driven compiler tunings could be prevented from generating invalid code (assuming no internal bugs in the compiler... hey, I can dream!)