eyebrows360

> Again, I am an AI skeptic, but your argument does not follow. Call yourself whatever you want, the words you're typing are not those of "skepticism". You're already fully convinced this shit is magic.

> I don't think it's "of course" anything. I think the jury is still out. For the moment, I'd say what LLMs do "looks like reasoning", which I think is impossible to dispute on either side. Except for where we do know exactly how these algorithms work and that's it's *all* just statistical maps of word relationship frequencies. If you think that's the *only* thing involved in "reasoning" I can't help you.

> Not sure why we're expecting an AI agent to handle it better. Because dumbass fanboys keep telling us they're perfect?

Of course they can't.

... but not the ones that can't think or reason.

I know *everything*.

They don't, it's bullshit.

You are part of the problem.

> unmask *guess at FTFY What this video is claiming to do is *impossible*. It's exactly the same thing as the "enhance!" meme derived from cop shows and just as impossible.

Some sort of budgerigar I think.

Will do!

This is entirely off-topic. Your "AI" is not as smart as either you or the grifters who sold you on it think it is.

People are dumb, people are greedy, people want get-rich-quick schemes all the time. Turns out the "robber barons" were not exceptionally evil, they were ~all of us all along. We just needed an opportunity.

I'm hoping someone can tell me and then I'll stop losing it ._.

Cometh the retort from the fanboys "But some piano teachers are bad too!!!!1" And like... sure? But the point of "AI" is *supposed* to be that it *isn't* as variable as humans. It's *supposed* to be *the* reference. If it's sometimes bad and sometimes good then we've achieved nothing.

Like your hair

Well *yes*, but also *no*, and in quite hard to quantify amounts. Money is, in all its forms, a distributed shared ledger. Whether it's paper, electronic, bottlecaps, bLoCkCHaIn, coins - it's always conceptually a shared ledger of everybody's account, everybody's balance of their effort towards societal upkeep. That doesn't mean it's a *fair* account of that, but that's what it is. In and of itself that's only a natural thing for a society to want to have, and in and of itself it's not inherently an evil thing. It's a means of reckoning with who's contributing what. A skewed-to-all-fuck one, but that's what it is. "Money" isn't the problem, it's *greed* for it that's the problem. Of course, it's possible to argue that "greed" here is emergent, that species such as ours will always have some members that behave like that, and that we should thus see "greed" as just an inevitable factor of "money" itself and thus place all "greed"'s evils on "money"'s head, too. Like how we see dams as inevitable consequences of beavers; it's just wired in. I'm sympathetic to that view, but on the other hand you can always structure your society to disincentivise excess and greed. "Greed" doesn't *have to* be emergent, and it and its negative externalities *can* be minimised with sensible policy. > Remove money and it's all good. For this to be viable you need to be post-scarcity, which is quite possibly an impossible state to achieve (it's certainly an impossible one to sustain indefinitely).

Well, y'know, mentally-teenagers :)

> and the people using them to generate bullshit reports in the hope to fatten their resumes or line their pockets The exact same "get rich quick with as little effort as possible no matter who gets negatively impacted" mentality that drove the blockchain boom, and all the moronic teenagers who glommed onto it and insisted it was the future of everything. Turns out, the robber barons were no different to anybody else, it's just that the vast majority of humans never had the opportunity to try and grift & exploit their way to riches. As soon as those opportunities presented themselves, hordes of us dove in head first. We're a species of opportunistic scum.

See, whenever I see "MySQL" I silently *read* "and MariaDB", because they're effectively interchangeable. I'd be surprised if MySQL+MariaDB were in decline as a combination, but I'd love to see the graph of their individual usages.

I think *you* are looking for whatever reason you can to become aroused by this, because you have already made up your mind about AI coding too.

I think you are looking for whatever reason you can to become aroused by this, because you have already made up your mind about AI coding.

> (if anyone has an applause button, go ahead and hit it now) I tried hitting mine but it just played Rich Evans laughing instead

Or, from the other pov: you try being a mod on a site that millions of bozos treat as the Do My Work For Me site, and see how long it takes you to become "toxic".

Fucking ironic coming from a conspiracy theorist mad at stuff that only exists in his own weird head.

If you did you'd post it, so thanks for confirming you're a massive terrified liar.

Because "access" by itself is meaningless and *does not* imply "use for whatever you want". "Use" is the only thing that matters. If "use" didn't matter then copyright wouldn't be a concept in the first place.

> but you do lose the right to say others should have limited access to something We're not talking about "access", we're talking about "use". People can have "access" to it but that doesn't mean they're free to "use" it for whatever they so choose, beyond the primary purpose of publishing it, which was for individual humans to read for educational/entertainment purposes.

> Google would constantly try and make fake accounts to scrape the content It's fun the lengths people will go to in order to imagine their personal pet villains being maximally nefarious. Google's crawler is absolutely not creating fake accounts on random forums.

And you have some evidence to support this position, yes? No.

You're *still* conflating "belief" with "knowledge".

> *almost* certainly Refuting your own argument without even realising it. Magnifique.

> A caveman could tell you how to get to space. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

> If a cave man thought that if he could just throw his spear hard enough it could reach the stars he'd have been absolutely right. Except for the part where he has no basis for believing he's capable of doing that, in part due to him clearly not being capable of doing that. *Come on*. > doesn't mean we couldn't extrapolate the basic principles. It *does* because we had no idea if there were limits on those "basic principles". You might as well say "we extrapolated `F=ma` so now we understand how the stars move" *and you'd be wrong*. You don't know how far your extrapolations are *actually* still valid for *until you do*. Why are you like this?! This is all very basic obvious stuff. "You don't know something until you know it" is perfectly run of the mill thing to state.

Thank you for these detailed responses! I'd lost my patience with the guy already and likely would be on a 7 day suspension right now for having called him something mean, if I'd continued engaging.

> > Yesssssssss, but follow along with me here: we didn't know that yet, so anybody proclaiming "we can go to space!" would've been just pure guessing, and in the context of the understanding of reality we had at the time, wrong. > > This is seriously the dumbest take in the world. Just mind boggling staggeringly stupid. > > It's like saying that if you jump off a cliff you don't know you'll hit the ground until you do. It's nothing like saying that. You can throw a rock, you can watch an apple fall from a tree, you can observe gravity pulling things to the ground all day long. Even a caveman 150,000 years ago could/should be able to reliably determine that "jumping off a cliff" would doom him, without having to try it. Seems you're completely not getting what I'm saying. > Lots of people predicted space flight and their predictions were fairly accurate. *Not before we knew about such fundamentals of physics as `F=ma` they didn't*. I'm not saying someone in the 1920s would be "wrong" for thinking going to space was possible, but go back a few hundred years more. Go back to ancient Rome or Egypt. Any of *them* thinking they could go up to whatever they thought was up there *were wrong* because they had no *evidence* available to them as to what "up there" *even was*, let alone technologies to achieve it.

They found 40+ duplicates of the same logic, some with "the fix" already applied, and some not. It became a nightmare trying to understand *why* each duplicate did or did not have the fix. It wasn't about just making a simple change across 40+ functions, it was about being able to ascertain whether it'd be *safe* to do so. That would mean manually tracing through each instances of each upstream thing that calls each function. *Fuck that noise*. Anyway, using an LLM for even the bit you thought he was trying to do, would be a terrible idea. You don't need to invoke random bullshit like that for something as simple as adding a line to 40 functions. You just get on with it. Far quicker to just do it, and then you don't have to check that the LLM guessed correctly, either.

> But again, this completely missed the point. What misses the point is trying to create analogies for "brains", a thing we humans did not design, by citing things such as "houses", which are things we quite specifically *did* design. Fucking hell. Talk about falling at the first hurdle. > we are talking about a program that is actually human-level intelligent And without some actual concrete understanding of the shape of "human intelligence" you're going to determine that you've managed to replicate it... *how*, exactly?

> All the fundamental physics for space flight existed for millennia before we achieved it Yesssssssss, but follow along with me here: *we didn't know that yet*, so anybody proclaiming "we can go to space!" would've been just pure guessing, and in the context of the understanding of reality we had at the time, *wrong*. Hard to wrap your head around I know, but yes, they would have been *wrong* to make that claim at that time. > Why would we not be able to? [Not typing it out again](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1pc4rim/the_death_of_software_engineering_as_a_profession/nrvlpce/?context=3), please reply there rather than here if you feel inclined to comment on that specific aspect.

> Your argument Usernames, homeslice. Sometimes different comments have different ones on them. > clarifying that this form is absolutely possible Also, you don't know that. We don't know it's possible to do cold fusion until we achieve it. We didn't know it was possible to go into space until we'd developed all the understanding of rocketry that's a prerequisite for it. We may yet not be able to even map "a brain" to a sufficient level of detail to be able to determine what any replica even needs to look like.

That's not what "silver bullet" means.

> agentic This is just another buzzword because the current buzzwords have been around too long and aren't being perceived as magic any more.

> with my lame knowledge Operative words extracted.

You imagine you *can* use it because you're too bad at this to understand why what you're classifying as "successful outputs" actually aren't that, so it's the next iteration of human evolution, got it.

Think of the practicability of the task we're talking about, and factor in our current understanding of physics. To replicate "a brain" *exactly*, which is what we're talking about here, we need a map of it to work to first. That itself throws up *so many* problems, because how the hell do you take a moment-in-time 3d snapshot of *a brain* that captures the state of any and all particles within it? I'm being serious here. How do you do that, with at least Heisenberg's uncertainty principle standing in your way of precisely scanning a *single* particle, let alone *all* of them? *How*? Unless someone comes up with a realistic method *that sticks to the laws of physics as we understand them* for even creating the map in the first place, the entire endeavour is a non-starter. It's *so* nowhere remotely close to a good enough answer to just say "well we know broadly how neurons connect", because if that was it then dead brains would be the same as alive brains, and we know they aren't. We need the "software", not just the "hardware" here. And that's why, even though from a very high level it "feels" like replicating a brain should be possible, I'm with /u/flynnnightshade on this one.

But also, any such "eventually" is *so* far out there's not even any point thinking about it *now*.

There's *so much* survivorship bias with this crowd, and it's even worse with the glut of "watch me chat to someone who earned a lot of money" podcaster fuckers that're so popular now.

> comments that tell you what Comments should never be for the "what" of it anyway, that's the code's job. Comments should be for the "why", and only where it's clearly necessary.

Please consider getting your brain fixed. An LLM can never tell you the *why*, it can only guess at it, and it's almost certainly working with less cOnTeXt than you are.

You have no chance to survive make your time ​ ^^^^^and ^^^^^not ^^^^^to ^^^^^be ^^^^^an ^^^^^asshole ^^^^^but ^^^^^technically ^^^^^it's ^^^^^"Somebody ^^^^^set ^^^^^up ^^^^^us ^^^^^the ^^^^^bomb"