You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 

205 lines
5.3 KiB

WEBVTT
00:00.410 --> 00:01.820
And welcome back.
00:01.850 --> 00:08.660
You've just seen GPT four zero spectacularly failed to work on our hard Python conversion problem.
00:08.660 --> 00:12.980
And now we're going to see how Claude handles the same problem.
00:12.980 --> 00:15.950
So we run the optimize method.
00:15.950 --> 00:18.740
We get back a bunch of stuff from Claude.
00:18.740 --> 00:20.030
Here it is.
00:20.660 --> 00:29.930
And now we will run the clang optimized, uh, the method to compile and optimize this code and run
00:29.930 --> 00:31.850
it and see what we get.
00:36.110 --> 00:37.370
Oh, it was still generating.
00:37.370 --> 00:40.280
And so a lot happened there.
00:40.310 --> 00:45.320
And the reason that there was a long pause is that it hadn't yet finished producing the code, as I
00:45.320 --> 00:49.670
just saw that it was like halfway finished, but it did just finish and then it compiled, and then
00:49.670 --> 00:52.610
it ran and it got the correct answer.
00:52.610 --> 00:56.570
And wowzer look at how fast that is.
00:56.570 --> 00:58.010
Look at the difference.
00:58.040 --> 01:02.990
Not only did Claude do this, but Claude has just done shockingly well.
01:02.990 --> 01:12.330
That you will notice, is two milliseconds, two milliseconds Compared to the time that the Python code
01:12.360 --> 01:14.640
have to go up to the Python code again.
01:14.880 --> 01:18.210
Uh, and where did we do the Python code?
01:18.210 --> 01:18.630
Here we go.
01:18.660 --> 01:22.500
The Python code got the same answer in 27 seconds.
01:22.500 --> 01:30.510
So, uh, I'm going to need to get a calculator here just to quickly, uh, tell myself 27.
01:33.300 --> 01:37.830
It's something like 13,000 times faster.
01:37.830 --> 01:40.110
Wow, wow.
01:40.110 --> 01:43.380
So you should be blown away by that.
01:43.380 --> 01:47.730
Uh, sometimes GPT four hasn't failed and has managed to generate some code.
01:47.730 --> 01:53.280
And when it does, the code that it's generated, for me at least, um, has been faster, but more
01:53.280 --> 01:55.590
like, uh, 10 or 100 times faster.
01:55.590 --> 01:57.030
Not like Claude.
01:57.030 --> 02:01.020
So how on earth has Claude been able to do this?
02:01.050 --> 02:05.490
Uh, how has it managed to make such highly optimized code?
02:05.490 --> 02:09.480
Like, is there something wrong with Python that, I mean, there must be something very wrong with
02:09.480 --> 02:12.000
Python if it can be so, so much faster.
02:12.000 --> 02:15.450
Well, no, there is a little bit more to the tale.
02:15.540 --> 02:20.610
Um, if we look at the optimized code that Claude generated.
02:20.730 --> 02:20.970
Hang on.
02:20.970 --> 02:23.760
I think I have to close this and double click again to see it.
02:23.760 --> 02:24.690
Here we go.
02:25.080 --> 02:27.990
Um, there is a bit more to the tale.
02:27.990 --> 02:29.970
There is a bit more to the tale.
02:29.970 --> 02:31.590
What has happened?
02:31.620 --> 02:39.240
What has happened is that, Claude, the direction that we gave Claude was to make sure that the same
02:39.240 --> 02:44.520
response was generated, identical response in the fastest possible time.
02:44.520 --> 02:48.510
And the prompt was very careful to say re-implement in C plus plus.
02:48.510 --> 02:51.240
And that is exactly what Claude has done.
02:51.240 --> 02:58.500
Claude, amazingly, has analyzed the code and understood the intent of the code.
02:58.710 --> 03:01.800
Um, perhaps with a hint by the name of the function.
03:01.800 --> 03:05.310
Although don't don't, uh, don't give it all away with the name of the function.
03:05.310 --> 03:11.460
And there's a few things to try and cause it off track, but it has re-implemented this in a completely
03:11.460 --> 03:18.990
different approach, using a theorem that I think it's called Shannon's, uh, algorithm.
03:19.140 --> 03:20.520
Uh, I think that's right.
03:20.520 --> 03:22.890
Yes, it is called Shannon's algorithm.
03:23.070 --> 03:30.760
Uh, and, uh, it is an approach that allows you to solve this puzzle just with one loop.
03:30.760 --> 03:32.230
One loop through.
03:32.260 --> 03:33.820
Uh, sorry, I'm on the wrong loop here.
03:33.820 --> 03:34.570
This is the loop.
03:34.570 --> 03:38.590
One loop through, not a nested loop.
03:38.650 --> 03:44.920
Uh, and as a result, uh, you can see there are there are, in fact, uh, two of them side by side.
03:44.920 --> 03:50.140
But it's not a, it's not a, uh, a nested loop, a loop within a loop.
03:50.170 --> 03:55.510
Um, and that allows you to get to the answer in a fraction of the time.
03:55.510 --> 04:01.540
So what Claude has done, which is so ingenious, is it's understood the intent of the function, it's
04:01.540 --> 04:07.360
not just translated something from Python to the equivalent C plus plus code, it has reimplemented
04:07.360 --> 04:15.130
it just as it was prompted to get the same answer in a blazingly, uh, fast amount of time.
04:15.130 --> 04:20.020
So I would say that is a terrific, terrific result by Claude.
04:20.080 --> 04:23.230
Uh, and, uh, a round of applause there.
04:23.230 --> 04:26.800
And it's certainly consistent with what we've seen from the Seal leaderboard.
04:26.800 --> 04:31.000
Claude 3.5 sonnet, uh, rules the show.
04:31.000 --> 04:32.530
Uh, Claude for the win.