• JohnAnthony@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I agree with the general idea of the article, but there are a few wild takes that kind of discredit it, in my opinion.

    “Imagine the calculator app leaking 32GB of RAM, more than older computers had in total” - well yes, the memory leak went on to waste 100% of the machine’s RAM. You can’t leak 32GB of RAM on a 512MB machine. Correct, but hardly mind-bending.
    “But VSCodium is even worse, leaking 96GB of RAM” - again, 100% of available RAM. This starts to look like a bad faith effort to throw big numbers around.
    “Also this AI ‘panicked’, ‘lied’ and later ‘admitted it had a catastrophic failure’” - no it fucking didn’t, it’s a text prediction model, it cannot panic, lie or admit something, it just tells you what you statistically most want to hear. It’s not like the language model, if left alone, would have sent an email a week later to say it was really sorry for this mistake it made and felt like it had to own it.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You can’t leak 32GB of RAM on a 512MB machine.

      32gb swap file or crash. Fair enough point that you want to restart computer anyway even if you have 128gb+ ram. But calculator taking 2 years off of your SSD’s life is not the best.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah, that’s quite on point. Memory leaks until something throws an out of memory error and crashes.

      What makes this really seam like a bad faith argument instead of a simple misunderstanding is this line:

      Not used. Not allocated. Leaked.

      OOP seems to understand (or at least claims to understand) the difference between allocating (and wasting) memory on purpose and a leak that just fills up all available memory.

      So what does he want to say?