Where do you think you are ?

Most of us are in tech/IT/research the population in the spectrum here is orders of magnitude bigger than the avg on real life. SO yeah people will be literal in order to be rhetorical. Not even selectively, this is the one site where you NEED to use /s unironically.

It’s even worse for CUDA. GPUs are expensive, and now you’re vendor locked. You’re between a rock and a hard place. Either spend millions in engineering time, or millions on price-gauged hardware.

Not even close to being true. You can invoke syscalls directly, just needs a bit of reverse engineering. I wrote a bare metal libc library, with (not a whole lot of) effort I'm fully able to interface with the kernel/open windows etc. Fully statically linked, no libc, no win32, compiled on Linux executed on Windows.

The problem is this isn't really well documented _at all_, and I even ended up attempting to get in touch with the Windows kernel dev team to give me the actual internal syscalls/endpoints, but they refuse to cooperate. Which is why writing anything for Windows is entirely pointless.

...your troubles are starting

I've never understood why we can't just expose the GPU ISA directly the way the CPU does. It's all getting compiled down at the end of the day so someone has to write a compiler for it either way. We'd be substantially better off IMO if it was all built directly into LLVM and then let middleware sort out the details.

Design by committee is a real phenomenon. And people in a committee know that, but they are also helpless.

I'll admit, it never once occurred to me that people might be using censored characters to provide more emphasis that a word is a swear, but I guess it does indeed do that, at least to the writer. Whether that comes across to the reader, and whether the writer cares that their intention was understood... I'm not so sure.

Basically someone comes up with something which is nonsensical, but plausible. Like believing that their videos are unpopular because they said the word "rape" and the algorithm magically got them, rather than because their videos suck. Then someone else sees that and starts thinking it is true. It silently spreads across the population.

I've seen this in organisations, where new recruits haven't been properly trained. Someone has come up with a method which is wildly incorrect and illegal, but plausible. The other new people around them have copied them. They've become slightly more experienced people, they've taught the next round of new people.

Before you know it, half of the organisation is doing something hilariously wrong, and they all sincerely believe it is the right way of doing it, because everyone does it. It's just self-reinforcing at that point.

1) code gets split between a host part that goes through your normal compiler, and a device part that goes through the GPU compiler. You may as well write the kernels separate and compile them via a separate compilation step, and keep your trusted host compiler for the host-side code.

2) data needs to move between the host and devices via explicit buffer transfers and synchronization steps, CUDA tries to hide this with annotated pointers, but it is really easier to think about those as just buffers that you allocate and transfer IMO, instead of trying to transparently share pointers between host and device like CUDA does.

3) kernel launches can we wrapped in a function similar to:

void RunKernel(const char *kernel_name, size_t width, size_t height, size_t depth);

Instead of the funky <<< >>> syntax that CUDA for C/C++ imposes. The problem is that once you start putting that in your code, it stops being C++ and stops being portable to non-CUDA GPUs. The launching and grid settings can be a bit hard to grasp at first, but sugarcoating that in bastardized C++ syntax does not absolve from having to understand it eventually.

So a good place to start might be an OpenCL or Metal primer, depending on the hardware you have available. D3D12 (and probably Vulcan too) makes this much harder than it should be, with too much boilerplate but is overall a mature and well-designed API should you wish to develop for Windows. Starting with WebGPU might also be good these days. It has a very different shader language than the others, but the rest of the concepts are similar, and it has a strong emphasis on making things async, which is what you want for performance anyways.

Claude/Codex should be able to get you moving very quickly.

I do find it a little amusing, because commenters stopped criticizing my cursing the moment I started getting a good chunk of karma here. I remember in 2016 someone criticized me for using the term "shitposting"...I don't think I've gotten that kind of criticism since 2016 though.

Before SPIR was a thing in OpenCL, Khronos could not understand why anyone would care about anything else other than C99, or why supporting Fortran on GPUs was at all relevant.

Secondly, from the competition only Intel cares about SYCL with their own sugar on top, OpenAPI.

AMD hasn't cared one second about it.

You may mention Codeplay, which is anyway an Intel owned company since 2022.

As for Vulkan, it doesn't have neither the features, nor the tooling that CUDA enjoys, it is the usual putting up with using LEGOs from different brands, with various pin sizes, that is so common with Khronos.

People and companies are hungry for knowledge about people's reactions, but the modern internet DOES NOT give an accurate image of people's views.

And now with AI I’m using it to fact check Claude. And still reading it for myself to understand why other peoples code is written a certain way. It’s basically the most important thing to reference when coding.

Sure today Claude can just read the library code and tell you what a function does or how to do something. But it still won’t tell you why something is a certain way or won’t figure out specifically-designed usage patterns as reliably as the author telling you “this is an example of doing x”

It is shocking how much of a differentiator this is. You will discover that the software you’re already using is much more capable than you realized.

We are starting to see results indicating cognitive decline due to AI in education, so no, we should do everything possible to ban it except for very limited fields.

LLMs aren't calculators or even computers, their generated output is too flexible, generic and basically starts replacing thinking.

Most likely they should only be allowed during late highschool years or just at university level, when people at least have a chance to learn how to research on their own.

Alabama is one state that requires the ACT. The mean score in Alabama is below 18/36. Wisconsin is another. Its students score on average about 1 point higher than the national average of 19.4/36.

If you prefer states that require the SAT, the mean SAT score of students from Delaware is less than 980/1600, about 50 points below the national average.

I'll leave it to others to argue about whether these exams are rigorous.

My hot take is that it's not really that terrible in the long run for work since I think LLMs will probably be nearly or actually AGI and better white collar workers than most humans within 5 years of today. But it is very funny and surreal in the meantime.

It is definitely bad for school, though. Kids IMO should actually be encouraged to use LLMs but not in or for class work outside of an AI best practices class. Probably stop giving them homework (90% will always try to find a way to make AI do it) and have them solve problems in class hours with no electronics so that they're forced to not defer learning. This will become even more important once we have AGI.