Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray) header
Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray) profile picture

CS prof @ WSU, HARP lab. Formerly: Basili Fellow @ UMD; prof @ UAB. I build programming languages & static analyses. Free your mind and your ass will follow.

Pullman, WA
Joined November 2015
Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)Photo by Thomas Gilray (@tomgilray)
Logic programming in a nutshell.
1
5
2
37
Thomas Gilray retweeted
1/3 UT Austin Computer Science is hiring faculty in several areas, including Programming Languages! We look forward to receiving your applications and welcoming new colleagues! cs.utexas.edu/faculty/recrui…
2
20
1
77
6,999
Disagree. Learning to code is learning to interact with your ideas in a rigorous, executable fashion. “Learning to code” in the sense of memorizing implementation details of React plugins and things like that is dumb though.
I genuinely do not know if learning to code is a smart move at this point. Why? Well, I do know that already knowing how to code is incredibly useful. But it took decades to master, and who knows how long it will stay useful? I think we have enough coders to bridge us to the point where we no longer need coders.
13
19
235
6,065
Thomas Gilray retweeted
The results are in: AI invitations are insufficient for establishing vampiric right of entry. However, there have been several cases of whales successfully inviting vampires into aquariums
5
56
1,672
Teaching Softwate Foundations today, we got to the part where Collatz is defined using an inductive proposition. So I got to dryly make the joke "this has been an open math problem since 1937, so probably it will get solved next week"
8
7
127
3,546
This is fine, as everyone knows a database is just a compiler. (A compiler is also mostly just a database, but there's no need to dwell on that between friends.)
What will be left at the end of computer science is databases, neural networks and chips
11
18
4
302
12,278
This is going to sound dramatic but I am genuinely starting to think that we’re going to see pre-AI software as a kind of “how did they even do it” endeavor. People will look at Linux like the pyramids
23
16
5
198
8,173
Thomas Gilray retweeted
they had degrees. that’s literally where we get the concept of degree from
You’re telling me men without degrees, using nothing but hammers and chisels, built this?
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The Duomo di Milano's construction, from 1386 onward, was directed by the Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo. It employed trained European master masons, architects, and engineers using advanced mathematics, cranes, scaffolding, and specialized workshops for marble and metalwork. getty.edu/cona/CONAFullS…
41
2,054
4
44,851
897,442
Love how 20 submissions is "strict submission limits."
2
2
31
2,518
A lot of stuff about AI is kind of alarmist when you drill down into it. But this is one that does just seem plainly evil in a way that sort of sucks
Terrifying thread. Due to a legal ruling which lets AI companies off the hook for copyright infringement as long as they destroy the original book, they're buying up millions of rare books, scanning them as AI training data, and then destroying them.
3
1
13
1,330
I had some refactors sitting in /tmp folders pre-review and the computer rebooted overnight. I ask both Sol and Fable in new sessions after a vague description of the work if it can be recovered. "Sorry about this." Both models quickly recovered it, however
2
1
367
Fable: *recovers files back to a new /tmp directory, points this out but says 'that no longer matters' because everything is 're-derivable from our design choices'* Fable: "No apology needed"
1
1
67
I feel odd that I like Fable's response so much more given that Sol's seems objectively more correct...
1
37
Thomas Gilray retweeted
There’s a big, under-appreciated reason why people may have very different experiences and opinions about using AI for work — are they using it for tasks they’re already an expert at, or tasks they can’t do themselves? The former leads to a *growth cycle* and the latter leads to a *dependence spiral*. When I use AI to do something I’m an expert at, like coding, I treat it as a tool. I can build quickly, maintaining an understanding of the code, knowing that if necessary, I can fix the code myself. It feels empowering. It frees up my time to think about the complex, judgment-oriented parts of software engineering that I can’t or won’t delegate to AI. That means my own skills improve rapidly, and I get to climb the ladder of complexity and develop higher-level skills, much more so than when I write the code myself. I feel in control. I can lock in and achieve a flow state — when AI is working, I’m reviewing, building understanding, and planning the next steps. I never get the feeling that the tool is about to replace me. This is the growth cycle. (Of course, the growth cycle is not automatic. I still need to exercise agency to use AI responsibly. But it’s the same challenge with any productivity-enhancing technology, and those who’ve navigated such transitions before are well-equipped to navigate it with AI as well.) On the other hand, if I use it for tasks I don’t understand and haven’t learned to perform myself, I have no choice but to treat it as a superintelligence. If something breaks, the best I can do is ask AI to fix it and hope for the best. I generally can’t evaluate the quality of the output myself. The only way to find out if it's any good is if and when the work is ultimately reviewed by an actual expert. The experience is confusing, unsettling and disempowering. And forget about flow state. By over-relying on AI, I risk losing whatever skill I had at the task in the first place, even if it boosts productivity in the short term. This is the dependence spiral. It’s no wonder that entry-level workers and students preparing to enter the workforce find themselves in a bind. To compete with the AI-enabled productivity of more seasoned workers, they must adopt AI themselves, but doing so risks the dependence spiral. I have some thoughts on solutions that I will share in later posts, but I think having a clear diagnosis of the problem is a useful first step.
40
60
9
314
193,893
Thomas Gilray retweeted
NEW: malware developers added nuclear & biological weapons text to to their spyware. Goal? To trigger LLM safety refusals... so that their spyware wouldn't be analyzed by an AI security scanner. Cleanest practical example I can think of for why over-indexing on first order safety alignment is risky. When closed (and open) models ship with aggressive refusals, they will be sprinkled with second-order blindspots that attackers will discover...and exploit. We are only in the earliest days of attackers leveraging these features, and it wouldn't surprise me if users systems that need to handle complex cybersecurity issues demand that models be less safety-blunted. In the weeds: @SocketSecurity's post also shows why intention matters in how you design a malware analysis pipeline to avoid prompt manipulation. H/T to colleagues that shared this with me socket.dev/blog/mini-shai-hu…
222
2,087
380
12,456
1,587,638
Great visiting @krismicinski @StarGazerMiao and Co here at Syracuse U today!
1
6
549
Releasing the latest iteration of our Assemblage dataset for binary analysis
1
2
10
715
Thomas Gilray retweeted
Replying to @krismicinski
“It difficult to get a man to understand something, when his h-index depends upon his not understanding it.”
1
3
65