If more people are able to step back and think about the potential growth for the next 5-10 years, then I think the discussion would be very different.

I am grateful to be able to witness all these amazing progress play out, but am also concerned about the wide ranging implications.

I think it’s a good antidote to the hype train. These things are impressive but still limited, solely hearing about the hype is also a problem.

Schadenfreude predates AI by millenia. Humans gonna human.

It’s a fear response.

There is a massive difference between a result like this when it's a research project and when it's being pushed by billion dollar companies as the solution to all of humanities problems.

In business, as a product, results are all that matter.

As a research and development efforts it's exciting and interesting as a milestone on the path to something revolutionary.

But I don't think it's ready to deliver value. Building a compiler that almost works is of no business value.

Noone can correctly quantify what these models can and can't do. That leads to the people in charge completely overselling them (automating all white collar jobs, doing all software engineering, etc) and the people threatened by those statements firing back when these models inevitably fail at doing what was promised.

They are very capable but it's very hard to explain to what degree. It is even harder to quantify what they will be able to do in the future and what inherent limits exist. Again leading to the people benefiting from it to claim that there are no limits.

Truth is that we just don't know. And there are too few good folks out there that are actually reasonable about it because the ones that know are working on the tech and benefit from more hype. Karpathy is one of the few that left the rocket and gives a still optimistic but reasonable perspective.

>> Works if you supply the correct include path(s)

The location of Standard C headers do not need to be supplied to a conformant compiler.

>> You could arguably fault ccc's driver for not specifying the include path to find the native C library on this system.

This is not a good implementation decision for a compiler which is not the C compiler distributed with the OS. Even though Standard C headers have well-defined names and public contracts, how they are defined is very much compiler specific.

So this defect is a "somethingburger."

They're literally following the first few lines of the README exactly as instructed by Claude. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the issue

This will do the rounds on the front page of reddit with no mention of the users c library paths having issues as the root cause despite the clear error message stating that.