←back to thread

The first year of free-threaded Python

(labs.quansight.org)
256 points rbanffy | 1 comments | 16 May 25 09:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.369s | source
Show context
AlexanderDhoore ◴[16 May 25 11:03 UTC] No.44003888[source]▶
Am I the only one who sort of fears the day when Python loses the GIL? I don't think Python developers know what they’re asking for. I don't really trust complex multithreaded code in any language. Python, with its dynamic nature, I trust least of all.
replies(19): >>44003924 #>>44003936 #>>44003940 #>>44003943 #>>44003945 #>>44003958 #>>44003971 #>>44004203 #>>44004251 #>>44004431 #>>44004501 #>>44005012 #>>44005100 #>>44005259 #>>44005773 #>>44006165 #>>44007388 #>>44011009 #>>44011917 #
quectophoton ◴[16 May 25 11:13 UTC] No.44003945[source]▶
I don't want to add more to your fears, but also remember that LLMs have been trained on decades worth of Python code that assumes the presence of the GIL.
replies(1): >>44006677 #
rocqua ◴[16 May 25 15:31 UTC] No.44006677[source]▶
This could, indeed, be quite catastrophic.

I wonder if companies will start adding this to their system prompts.

replies(1): >>44010658 #
1. zahlman ◴[16 May 25 23:18 UTC] No.44010658[source]▶
Suppose they do. How is the LLM supposed to build a model of what will or won't break without a GIL purely from a textual analysis?

Especially when they've already been force-fed with ungodly amounts of buggy threaded code that has been mistakenly advertised as bug-free simply because nobody managed to catch the problem with a fuzzer yet (and which is more likely to expose its faults in a no-GIL environment, even though it's still fundamentally broken with a GIL)?