𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍

deleted by creator

1. They absolutely do design it for the intended users: themselves. It just isn’t you. They’re scratching their own itch, not your’s.
2. The OP opinion conflates free/paid with closed/open source. Paid software can still be open source, and so beholden to the paying customers. Free software can be closed source.
3. The objection is really someone who isn’t contributing anything complaining that people giving away something for free aren’t acting like they owe them something.

This is a Choosy Begger situation. Want someone to work for you? Pay them. It has nothing to do with whether the software is open source, but whether it’s free or paid.

Man, I don’t buy new hardware often, and only recently became familiar with M.2 NVMe. Which I thought was pretty spiffy.

I hate videos, so in I’m off to find an article; or maybe just have Ecosia’s AI explain it for me.

Edit: I’m aware one’s memory, the other’s persistent storage. This replaces SODIMM, yah? Anyway, new specs.

Or, another job opportunity and litter the code with comments like “have fun parallelizing this code, sucker!”

Don’t over-architect, but also don’t architect yourself into a hole.

The best advice I was ever given was don’t do more than you need to, but make sure that you design in such a way that you can rearchitect without rewriting the while damned thing.

I once dreamed up a way to send cake through a fax machine. When I woke up, I remained convinced for about 5 minutes that the solution would work.

My solution was all in code, but yeah. Spend enough time with your head in a domain and the dreams get wierd.

Even if we aren’t OP is still wrong; we’d have 8 fingers, if we don’t count thumbs, even if we index them from 0-7. The only way 9 works is when someone doesn’t have the common number of digits.

I didn’t want to spoil their fun, but I’m glad you did. That kid’s going to experience an embarassing moment of parental disillusionment the first time they try to be clever with a halfway competent math teacher.

Removed by mod

We’re saying the same thing. AI can create art. My point was that we used to claim that art was a domain that was unassailable by machines, and this obviously is not true. So now, humans - or the particular human to whom I was replying - had a new goalpost: adaptabiility.

We’ll keep coming up with new goalposts where “humans have an edge” that will keep us relevant and ascendant over machines, and irreplaceable. I believe we’ll run out of goalposts faster than many people would like.

You know, there is one small other hope I have: that, despite how we’ve raised them, our children will be better than us, and will stop the cycle of wealth concentration. It’s unlikely, but it’s the only chance I see.

Amen. Let’s do that thing: you have my vote.

And, yet, I’ve been to an exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Fine Art that consist of an installation that included a toilet, among other similarly inspired works of great art.

On a less absurd note, I don’t have much admiration for Pollock, either, but people pay absurd amounts of oof for his stuff, too.

An art history class I once took posed the question: if you find a clearing in a wood with a really interesting pile of rocks that look suspiciously man-made, but you don’t know if a person put it together or if it was just a random act of nature… is it art? Say you’re convinced a person created it and so you call it art, but then discover it was an accident of nature, does it stop being art?

I fail to see any great difference. AI created art is artificial, created with the intention of producing art; is it only not art because it wasn’t drawn by a human?

This is not a foregone conclusion.

Sure, I agree. There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. However, I’ve seen no evidence that it won’t happen, or that humans hold any inherent advantage over AI (as nascent as it may be, in the rude forms of LLMs and deep learning they’re currently in).

If you want something to reflect upon, your statement about how humans have an advantage of adaptability sounds exactly like the previous generation of grasping at inherant human superiority that would be our salvation: creativity. It wasn’t too long ago that people claimed that machines would never be able to compose a sonnet, or paint a “Starry Night,” and yet, creativity has been one of the first walls to fall. And anyone claiming that ML only copies and doesn’t produce anything original has obviously never studied the history of fine art.

Since noone would now claim that machines will never surpass humans in art, the goals have shifted to adaptability? This is an even easier hurdle. Computer hardware is evolving at speeds enormously faster than human hardware. With the exception of the few brief years at the start of our lives, computer software is more easily modified, updated, and improved than our poor connective neural networks. It isn’t even a competition: conputers are vastly more well equipped to adapt faster than we are. As soon as adaptability becomes a priority of focus, they’ll easily exceed us.

I do agree, there are a lot of ways this futur could not come to pass. Personally, I think it’s most likely we’ll extinct ourselves - or, at least, the society able to continue creating computers. However, we may hit hardware limits. Quantum computing could stall out. Or, we may find that the way we create AI cripples it the same way we are, with built-in biases, inefficiencies in thinking, or simply too high of resource demands for complexity much beyond what two humans can create with far less effort and very little motivation.

The sad thing is that no amount of mocking the current state of ML today will prevent it from taking all of our jobs tomorrow. Yes, there will be a phase where programmers, like myself, who refuse to use LLM as a tool to produce work faster will be pushed out by those that will work with LLMs. However, I console myself with the belief that this phase will last not even a full generation, and even those collaborative devs will find themselves made redundant, and we’ll reach the same end without me having to eliminate the one enjoyable part of my job. I do not want to be reduced to being only a debugger for something else’s code.

Thing is, at the point AI becomes self-improving, the last bastion of human-led development will fall.

I guess mocking and laughing now is about all we can do.

I especially enjoyed your COBOL metaphor. Nicely done!

Go is like snakes: you’re hatched from an egg and pretty much effective from the get-go. The older you get, the bigger prey you can eat, but otherwise things don’t change much since you were hatched. Your species can thrive in almost any environment, you’re effective, you have all the tools you need straight out of the egg.

Rust is like humans. There’s a huge incubation period, and you’re mostly helpless when you’re born, but the older you get, the more effective you become with the tools nature graced you with. And you, like Thanos, are inevitable, even if it does mean the death of billions.

Python is like beaver. Everyone has an opinion about you: some think you’re cute, some think you’re wierd. You’re perfectly suited to your environment, but things get awkward outside of your natural habitat - you can function, but not as well as when you’re in your comfort zone. And when people encounter you where they’re not expecting, they can be unpeasantly surprised, and you can cause them trouble.

C++ is like platypus. You resemble some other more simple, some might say sane, animal, but developed into a sort of frankenstein monster creature made from a jumble of parts and a stinger that, when it kills someone, comes as a shock. Every part of you serves some purpose, even if it seems tacked-on and out of place.

Then there’s Node. You are everywhere. You are legion. You fill up ecosystems. People try to defend you, claiming that you serve some purpose in the foodchain, but there’s scant evidence. Attempts to eradicate you fail. You often spread deadly disease. You breed, rapidly, persistently, relentlessly. You are widely hated, and yet everwhere.

Edit: typo

You’re obviously old and not jiggy with the latest lingo go buy your coffin already boomer-

Seriously, though, I don’t bother trying to figure it out anymore. Every generation invents their own slang to rebel, but I can’t tell if this is millenials taking over and injecting their brand, or an attempt to click-bait zoomers, or even gen-x trying to be hip. “Slam” sounds gen-x-ey to me.

It’s just shoddy writing, but then I hear a lot of “language evolves,” “it’s common usage and so correct,” and references to fucking Merriam-Webster, the Guiness Book of World Records of dictionaries.

I’m old, and I’m still discovering ways a fundamentalist upbringing fucked me up.

5 words:

• Tibet
• Hong Kong
• Taiwan
• Macau

Past, recent past, near future, and the next in line.

Sadly, all of the admins with any balls (metaphorically) have long since quit the platform. All that’s left there are spineless brown-nosers.