Scaling Git at OpenAI

(openai.com)

87 points | by makeramen 4 hours ago

8 comments

  • bigmadshoe 55 minutes ago
    Can anyone explain to me what this massive volume of code could actually be doing? They obviously have variations of model architectures, training infrastructure, serving infrastructure, and the source for their apps.

    Why would the volume that any of this be increasing exponentially? And what are all the engineers doing when (besides the model quality) their products don't seem to be changing very much?

    • jameson 26 minutes ago
      Engineers are working on multiple sessions, and LLM is doing most of the commits/pushes. This is becoming norm at big techs.

      If you are wondering what these changes are, you can take a peek at https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commits/main/

      This isn't to say that such pace of iteration is good or bad. That's a separate discussion.

    • jrflo 25 minutes ago
      For one, they have the internal models that us normies don't have. Also, machine learning as a field is probably the most automate-able field for AI. It's 100% on computers without "real world" collisions at all, AI can do the whole stack today even with publicly available models. And since it's so empirical, you can make a lot of progress by just running more experiments with more compute.
    • O5vYtytb 48 minutes ago
      At some point I imagine they will be writing their own software for the entire training and inference stack. Kernels, libraries, why not? With compute so constrained it must be beneficial to optimize everything as much as possible
      • noosphr 3 minutes ago
        I'm doing that now with gemini argon.

        It's better than the ductape and glue pipelines that we had previous to this.

        The software is the definition of plumbing no one cares about and testing it is trivial.

      • stingraycharles 38 minutes ago
        I’m not buying this argument, the apps of the LLM providers are some of the most wasteful apps that exist. Have you ever looked at how much memory / CPU Claude and Codex use? They ship with entire virtual machine hypervisors for sandboxing.

        I think it’s simply a matter of dogfooding and new feature development, they do have much higher velocity than companies of equivalent size and an unlimited token budget helps as well.

        • brrwind 9 minutes ago
          This is completely orthogonal to the inference and training stack that the parent comment mentions
      • steve1977 34 minutes ago
        Looking at their desktop apps, I don't think they're into optimizing.
        • trollbridge 20 minutes ago
          They certainly are spewing forth large amounts of code, though.
    • simlevesque 33 minutes ago
      It's the billions of scripts we used not to commit. And billions more.
    • 7e 52 minutes ago
      It's AI slop. AI coding agents write much more voluminous code, in my experience. The base code is more expansive, and there are more tests, and there are many, many more commits as you keep fixing and fixing and fixing over and over and over.
      • rogerrogerr 37 minutes ago
        I'd bet money they're capturing every change made by any agent, not just at the end of a 'task' (or even a turn). Free training material volume to see what was changed and then what was changed later in the same turn to fix the mistakes introduced.
      • piyh 37 minutes ago
        If they allocate more compute internally than they sell on subs & APIs, then they should be generating more code than all the customers they sell to combined.
    • nullsanity 15 minutes ago
      [dead]
    • Mateo781201 52 minutes ago
      Maybe it could be faking code and ai usage?

      I've seen it on other workplaces, but from what I see from open ai and anthropic, the code shouldn't be as extended.

      But maybe I'm crazy lol

  • paxy 1 hour ago
    While I don't have any particular interest in the topic this is a great blog post. No AI in every second line, no needless marketing or hype. Just a bunch of engineers talking in their own voice about a topic in great detail with numbers, charts, visualizations.
  • 3pm 26 minutes ago
    > We built Pando with Codex, moving from kick-off to production, in just 10 weeks. The core of Pando was designed by a single engineer, implemented by teams of agents, and deployed by a handful of engineers. Pando began serving production traffic in April of this year, and is one part of a larger system of source control management tools used at OpenAI.

    Impressive!?

  • pksunkara 34 minutes ago
    I don't see benchmarks anywhere in here. For example, how many pushes per second does this handle? And how many concurrent pushers? etc..

    Disclaimer: I am building a code forge at https://juju.bi

  • bhouston 31 minutes ago
    Another way to avoid having to maximize download speed is to use a global git cache per machine in a similar way that pnpm optimizes installing packages:

    https://git-dedup.ben3d.ca

  • throwaway27448 1 hour ago
    Technical details aside, this volume is ridiculous. How on earth do they see this kind of "growth" as an asset and not a liability?
    • rogerrogerr 1 hour ago
      This is obviously just a response to https://www.anthropic.com/research/redesigning-source-contro.... Probably no one in the chain of writing this even thought about your question.
    • ctkhn 56 minutes ago
      Instead of keeping it simple, they decided to go stupid.
    • ralph84 1 hour ago
      Because this kind of growth is how they get to RSI.
      • wilkystyle 52 minutes ago
        Whereas previously, creating this amount of code by hand would simply result in RSI.
    • warkdarrior 57 minutes ago
      > Technical details aside, this volume is ridiculous. How on earth do they see this kind of "growth" as an asset and not a liability?

      That coding volume is a liability only for human engineers, with their limited memory, short attention span, tiredness, and quirky coding preferences. LLMs don't have any of those problems.

      • mrbungie 42 minutes ago
        Not necessarily. High LoC software is a potential bad design smell (without a counterfactual for the same level of functionality it might not be easy to tell though). Badly designed code entering an agent context is always a liability, because it contaminates decisions down the road, and makes new work slower as it needs more tokens to process and navigate old code.
      • throwaway27448 52 minutes ago
        Sure, but you also don't know what your LLM is doing without running into these same limitations. So how is this an improvement?
        • rubikscube09 6 minutes ago
          who cares what the llm is doing? most of the time when there is disagreement, the llm is right and you are wrong anyways.
  • firemelt 44 minutes ago
    lol nice try openai but its shallow and too late
  • vatsachak 1 hour ago
    Impressive. We're definitely seeing LLMs help create real novel software