in reply to Re^6: AI in the workplace
in thread AI in the workplace
Many search engines nowadays come up with an AI generated preface summing up the results before showing the hits.
Of course we are not a search engine nor a code writing service, but a community tool helping others becoming better programmers.
I initially said it's a horrible idea, bc the way harangzsolt is proposing would lead to too many problems, (apart from implementation problems)
But let's try:
So I took the liberty to feed a current question into Duck.AI using ChatGPT 4o
> Why is "any" slow in this case?
Answer:
The benchmarks you've provided show the performance of different methods for filtering out "uninteresting" lines from a string of 2D data. Let's break down the results and analyze why certain methods perform better or worse than others.
### 📊 Benchmark Results Overview
Here's a summary of the benchmark results:
| Method | Rate (lines/sec) | Comparison to Others | |------------|------------------|----------------------| | any_cr | 331/s | -- | | any | 724/s | -54% | | ugly | 930/s | -22% | | ugly_cr | 1265/s | -43% |
### 🔍 Performance Analysis
#### 1. *Understanding the Methods*
The performance drop in "ugly" compared to "ugly_cr" can be attributed to the fact that `$1` and `$2` are read-only and are re-evaluated each time they are used in a comparison. This means that every time you check `$1` or `$2`, Perl has to numify them again, which adds overhead. In contrast, "ugly_cr" assigns these values to lexicals, which are faster to access.
#### 3. *Why "any_cr" is Slower*
The "any_cr" method is slower than "any" because of the additional overhead of assigning values to lexicals before performing the checks. While lexicals are generally faster to access, the overhead of the assignment in this case outweighs the benefits when combined with the `any` function. The `any` function itself is optimized for performance, but the added step of assigning to lexicals introduces unnecessary complexity in this context.
#### 4. *Asymmetry Between "ugly vs. ugly_cr" and "any vs. any_cr"*
In summary, the performance differences can be attributed to:
It reads interesting - like always with AI - but requires deeper analysis for disguised non-sense. (Disclaimer: I didn't)
Definitely nothing an amateur could handle. But an expert can draw inspiration from this.
For instance I was intrigued by the idea of $1 being slow because it can't optimize numification.(point 2)
So I asked for clarification, guessing this being about dual-values.
> why is numification of read-only slower
Answer:
Numification refers to the process of converting a string or other data type into a numeric value in Perl. When dealing with read-only variables like `$1` and `$2`, which are special variables that hold the results of a regex match, the performance implications of numification can be significant. Here’s why:
### 🔍 Key Reasons for Slower Numification of Read-Only Variables
#### 1. *Repeated Conversion Overhead*
When you use `$1` and `$2` directly in comparisons, Perl must convert these values to numeric form each time they are accessed. This involves:
#### 2. *Lack of Caching*
Unlike lexically scoped variables (like `$c` and `$r` in your "ugly_cr" method), which can be assigned once and accessed multiple times without further conversion, read-only variables do not benefit from caching. Each access to `$1` and `$2` results in a fresh conversion, leading to inefficiencies.
#### 3. *Context Sensitivity*
Perl is context-sensitive, meaning that the same variable can behave differently depending on how it is used (numeric vs. string context). When using `$1` and `$2`, Perl must always be aware of the context in which they are being used, adding additional overhead to the process.
### 🧠 Conclusion
In summary, the numification of read-only variables like `$1` and `$2` is slower due to:
Again interesting, but I'm not convinced. The claim (Point 2) that "read-only variables do not benefit from caching" can't be reproduced. Because $1 is indeed also a dual-value.
:~$ perl -MDevel::Peek -E'"42"=~/(\d+)/; say $1; Dump $1; $a=$1+1; Dum +p $1' 42 SV = PVMG(0x5d60b28468a0) at 0x5d60b2868a50 REFCNT = 1 FLAGS = (GMG,SMG,POK,pPOK) IV = 0 NV = 0 PV = 0x5d60b283f5f0 "42"\0 CUR = 2 LEN = 16 MAGIC = 0x5d60b286f0e0 MG_VIRTUAL = &PL_vtbl_sv MG_TYPE = PERL_MAGIC_sv(\0) MG_OBJ = 0x5d60b2868a38 MG_LEN = 1 SV = PVMG(0x5d60b28468a0) at 0x5d60b2868a50 REFCNT = 1 FLAGS = (GMG,SMG,IOK,POK,pIOK,pPOK) IV = 42 #<--- Caching NV = 0 PV = 0x5d60b283f5f0 "42"\0 CUR = 2 LEN = 16 MAGIC = 0x5d60b286f0e0 MG_VIRTUAL = &PL_vtbl_sv MG_TYPE = PERL_MAGIC_sv(\0) MG_OBJ = 0x5d60b2868a38 MG_LEN = 1 :~$
Yes, when discussing caching in the context of Perl variables, it often relates to the concept of **dual values**. Let's break down what dual values are and how they relate to performance and caching.
### 🔍 What are Dual Values?
In Perl, a *dual value* is a special type of variable that can hold both a string and a numeric representation. This means that a single variable can behave differently depending on the context in which it is used:
#### 1. *Efficiency of Access*
When a variable is assigned to a lexical (like `$c` and `$r` in your "ugly_cr" method), Perl can store its value in a way that allows for quick access without needing to re-evaluate or convert it each time. This is akin to caching the value:
With dual values, if a variable is already in numeric form, Perl can use that cached numeric representation directly without needing to convert it again. This is particularly beneficial in loops or repeated comparisons, where performance can be significantly impacted by the overhead of repeated conversions.
### 🧩 Conclusion
In summary, dual values in Perl allow a variable to hold both string and numeric representations, enabling efficient access based on context. When you assign regex match results to lexicals, you effectively cache the value, avoiding the repeated overhead of numification associated with read-only variables like `$1` and `$2`. This caching mechanism is a key reason why using lexicals can lead to better performance in your code.
LLM output can inspire good ideas in our context but require an expert to deal with. The wordy answers are often full of hidden pitfalls and contrary to a human being the LLM doesn't even try to cross-check what it (hear-)says.
So
I don't know. But using normal questions as prompts is obviously a horrible idea.
Hardly. This is most likely already happening, at least with AnoMonk posts.
Very likely, at least in requiring us to increase the quality standards of answers or demanding POCs.
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
see Wikisyntax for the Monastery
This should probably better be a meditation in it's own thread.
This test is far from methodical. I ran this conversation with Duck.AI after the original question already got many answers. Hence the replies might have already been training and influencing the LLM.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^8: AI in the workplace (... in the Monastery)
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 28, 2025 at 18:30 UTC | |
by LanX (Saint) on Jul 28, 2025 at 20:20 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jul 28, 2025 at 20:25 UTC |