Haha, excellent downvote, thanks. I stand corrected, one other person mentioned the word "copyright" in the time between me searching the discussion for that term, and then writing and posting.
There is some copyright discussion on one of the other submissions on this topic.
Yes not in this thread but in the other submissions lots of people said the author was "stealing" the code but turns out the MIT original wasn't even eligible to be under that license as it has no copyright.
Nice, but what is the motivation for this? That the syntax is perceived to be nicer than SMT-LIB format? Or that Lean can get involved? Differential testing? Just for fun?
The Turing test has been passed. The Turing test had already been passed in 2002. The Turing test isn't about some machine fooling all humans all the time. It's about fooling some humans some of the time. That's an extremely low bar. It has been cleared. Let's put this to rest.
The bar you mentioned was reached in the 1960s with ELIZA. I have no idea why the obsession with the test has persisted into modern generations. It was some guy's thought experiment from 1950. It's not scientific in any fashion. Passing it doesn't prove anything. It's like some kind of authority worship game where people invoke the name of Turing as though doing so bolsters the strength of their arguments in any way whatsoever.
I accept your concession. The humiliation of irrationally committed foundationalists has been a long time coming, so it's good you're trying to get ahead of the curve.
The "blocking" happens on the side of the AI users. You like using AI. You are aware of this policy.
Will you submit an AI-generated pull request to OpenJDK? No? Voilà, you have successfully self-enforced the OpenJDK policy.
Or do you go to the trouble of finding an interesting issue to work on, get your agent to code it up, manually polish it to make it less AI-looking in case there are doubts, and then submit it? Yes? No. Why would you? To prove some kind of point, to yourself, that you can never disclose publicly? Most people have better things to do. Voilà, the policy is, again, self-enforced. Enjoy your day at the beach instead of trying to trick a project that is politely asking you not to trick it!
Why would they? The only thing the readme says about RESEARCH.md is "if you want to contribute to the language please read RESEARCH.md". The OP doesn't want to contribute, they want to see an example of choreographic programming. This shouldn't be hard. What is hard is guessing which of the random markdown documents to click to find an example.
You're presumably using an LLM to drive the compiler, and your LLM should be just as capable of reading the compiler's error message and fixing the problem. So why double the work?
It's not, and the article's attempt at putting lipstick on this pig is nonsensical:
> StringView has no operator bool, so a successful match reads as !scanner.accept('=').isEmpty(). Noisier than returning a bool, but the matched text comes back with the answer instead of requiring a second call to go get it.
Clearly there is a second call, it's the call to isEmpty. Plus, the actual text is lost in this particual example (though we know what it was).
An actual ergonomic way of using this would set things up so that the INI parser's inner code could be written something like this:
