Sorry I drifted, claude is probably done generating stuff

This is false. To "brute force" a driver, you'd need a feedback loop between the hardware's output and the driver's input.

While, in theory, this is possible for some analog-digital traducers (e.g WI-FI radio), if the hardware is a human-interface system (joystick, monitor, mouse, speaker, etc.) you literally need a "human in the loop" to provide feedback.

Additionally, many edge-cases in driving hardware can irrevocably destroy it and even a domain-specific agent wouldn't have any physics context for the underlying risks.

This isn’t quite a fair example, these are so massively complex with code path built explicitly for so many individual applications. Nvidia cards are nearly a complete SoC.

Though then again, coding agents 1 year ago of the full autonomous sort were barely months old, and now here we are in one year. So, maybe soon this could be realistic? Hard to say. Even if code agents can do it, it still costs $ via tokens and api calls. But a year ago it would have cost me at least a few dollars and a lot more time to do things I get done now in a prompt and 10 minutes of Opus in a sandbox.

It's a bhyve VM running alpine Linux and you pass through your WiFi adaptor and get a bridge out on the freebsd host.

- have AI reverse engineer Windows WiFi driver and make a crude prototype

- have AI compare registers captured by filter driver with linux driver version and iterate until they match (or at least functional tests pass)

not exactly rocket surgery, and windows device drivers generally don't have DRM/obfuscation, so reverse engineering them isn't hard for LLMs.

Just like it does when given an existing GPL’d source and dealing with its hallucinations, the agent could be operated on a black box (or a binary Windows driver and a disassembly)?

The GPL code helped here but as long as the agent can run in a loop and test its work against a piece of hardware, I don’t see why it couldn’t do the same without any code given enough time?

I fully expect that Claude wrote code that does not resemble that of the driver in the Linux tree. TFA is taking on some liability if it turns out that the code Claude wrote does largely resemble GPL'ed code, but if TFA is not comfortable with the code written by Claude not resembling existing GPL'ed code then they can just post their prompts and everyone who needs this driver can go through the process of getting Claude to code it.

In court TFA would be a defendant, so TFA needs to be sure enough that the code in question does not resemble GPL'ed code. Here in the court of public opinion I'd say that claims of GPL violation need to be backed up by a serious similarity analysis.

Prompts cannot possibly be considered derivatives of the GPL'ed code that Claude might mimic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/learnmachinelearning/comments/1665d...

That's how I've been using the bot for years. Organize tasks, mediate between them, look for obvious-to-me problems and traps as things progress, and provide corrections where that seems useful.

It differs from regular management, I think, in that the sunk costs are never very significant.

Find a design issue that requires throwing out big chunks of work? No problem: Just change that part of the spec and run through the process for that and the stuff beneath it again. These parts cost approximately nothing to produce the first time through, and they'll still cost approximately nothing to produce the second time.

I'm not building a physical structure here, nor am I paying salaries or waiting days or weeks to refactor: If the foundation is wrong, then just nuke it and start over fresh. Clean slates are cheap.

(I don't know if that's the right way to do it, or the wrong way. But it works -- for me, at least, with the things I want to get done with a computer.)

Which has dwindled in number so much as to practically not be problem anymore. There is even a Linux-only or Linux-first attitude with some vendors.

Buying Apple to run Linux borders on stupidity nowadays because of the vast better options fit for purpose.

Like buying a gasoline vehicle then complaining it can't run on diesel. It wasn't designed to.

Read my previous comment again!! If you buy a genuine display and install it, it won't work because Apple locks the hardware ID via firmware. It must be installed by Apple only.

No other vendor does that, the Linux community always found its way to get a non-supported hardware working.

Windows until recently with the AI slope, was the only major OS used everywhere so why many vendors only have Windows driver, I understand theirs "Why bother?"

Might be quite awhile before you can do this with large systems but we already see this on smaller contextual scales such as Claude Code itself

Like what are we even doing here...

Also, the "spec" that the LLM wrote to simulate the "clean-room" technique is full of C code from the Linux driver.

Aren't you just describing every vibe code ever?

To think about it, that is probably my main issue with AI art/books etc. They never put in any effort. In fact, even the competition is about putting least effort.

So hardware drivers are not a solved problem where you can just ask chatgpt for a driver and it spits one out for you.

Yes and that's what I'm pointing out, they vibe coded it and the headline is somewhat misleading, although it's not the authors fault if you don't go read the article before commenting.

But it does have to do with AI (obviously), and specifically the capabilities of AI. If you need to be knowledgable about how wifi drivers work and put in effort to get a decent result, that obviously speaks volumes about the capabilities of the vibe coding approach.

The part to do with AI is that it was not able to drive a comprehensive and bug free driver with minimal effort from the human.

That is the point.