Loading video...
Video Failed to Load
Here's a little animation that visualises the way that loops distort the relationship between source code and actual executed instructions. I think this can be tricky for beginners to grasp, but IMO this type of extrapolation is a key part of becoming great at reading code.
13,531 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)
0 Comments
No comments available
Comments from the original post will appear here
![Harry on running and why he chose "Sted Sarandos" as his name for the Berlin Marathon “I think the relationship between that almost spiritual aspect that music can have, when you're dancing and you get into this meditative place, I think there is a lot of synergy there between how you can feel when you're running sometimes. […] I think that the relationship between the meditation meditative aspect that music can have and the meditative aspect that running can sometimes have, it was like, weirdly made a lot of sense to me that those two things happened at the same time. But yeah, I think just feeling clear and present and doing one thing at a time and just being in it was the goal of both. And for the name, I don’t know. It’s silly, really.” - The Bru Show](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014798920678023672/amplify_video_thumb/2014798750661644288/img/Jdc-CuTG0vRiUmhr.jpg)
![John Carmack: The code for AGI could conceivably be written by one individual After stepping down as CTO of Meta’s Oculus VR, legendary programmer John Carmack was trying to decide if he would work on nuclear fission or artificial general intelligence (AGI). He ultimately chose AGI. “I think [fission] is possible,” John says. “Somebody should be doing this, but it’s going to involve some politics, decent-sized teams, and a bunch of cross-functional stuff that I don’t love. While artificial general intelligence seems to me like the highest-leverage moment for a single individual potentially in the history of the world.” He explains: “With the things we know about the brain and what we can do with artificial intelligence . . . I’m not a madman for saying that it is likely that the code for artificial general intelligence is going to be tens of thousands of lines of code — not millions of lines of code.” He continues: “This is code that conceivably one individual could write, unlike writing a new web browser or operating system. And based on the progress that machine learning has made in the recent decade, it’s likely that the important things that we don’t know are relatively simple. There’s probably a handful of things — my bet is there’s less than six key insights — that need to be made. Each one of them can probably be written on the back of an envelope. We don’t know what they are, but when they’re put together in concert with GPUs at scale and the data that we all have access to, we can make something that behaves like a human being or living creature and that can then be educated in whatever ways we need to get to the point where we can have universal remote workers where anything that somebody does mediated by a computer, that doesn’t require physical interaction, an AGI will be able to do.” Carmack does not think this will be “unapproachably hard”: “That’s incredibly hubristic to say, but what I said a couple of years ago was that there’s a 50% chance that somewhere there will be signs of life of an AGI in 2030, and I’ve probably increased that slightly — maybe 55-60% now because I do think there’s a little sense of acceleration.” Source: Lex Fridman (Aug 2022)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2074581719198437534/amplify_video_thumb/2074220244634140672/img/k4JRRvXNNod34QfI.jpg)