usrbinbash

8 ms·

301.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> the proof lies in what job ads mention. Considering how many job ads for "entry level position" then go on to list a skillset that describes half an IT department, I'm not sure I would consider using these as a technical
302.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> I'm telling you that Java and Java programmers need them, Yes, I know, you repeated it often enough. And I keep not sharing that opinion of yours. > Why do you think there are so many translation layer efforts for JavaScript? T
303.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> "I did Java in a serious project without frameworks once" is not a counter to: Java needs frameworks to be generally useful. Yes, it pretty much is. Because "needs" implies a non-negotiable requirement. I need to br
304.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Cool companies and interesting ideas get solved by using 19 century tech Both Javascript and Java were invented in 1995, pretty sure that's not in the 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century
305.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Also, with how far AI code helpers have come, boilerplate is even less of an issue. Couldn't agree more. With how far on-the-fly code generation powered by LLMs has gotten, the oh-so-dreaded "boilerplate" has become an a
306.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
So my arguments are pretty damn solid. Glad that's sorted out.
307.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Done, the company I work at does in several front end applications. Wow, that didn't take long at all. Also, take a look at this: https://news.ycombinator.com/hn.js That's the JS that powers this very well known,
308.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Java (and JavaScript) are too weak. No, they are not. People have built, and are still building, amazing products using plain JS. They are also doing so using very simple, lightweight frameworks. Abstractions are useful and can incre
309.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> proofing it to be wrong is impossible and not things work. That's pretty much entirely how science works ever since Karl Popper: You find an observation that the hypothesis cannot predict or predicts wrong. Bam, hypothesis falsifi
310.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Those who refuse to learn from history... So today, instead of building their own infrastructure, and using free (as in freedom) OSS for their organizational software needs, governments and public agencies pay massive amounts of taxpayer mo
311.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
The feeling these shapes cause I like to call "unresolveable unfamiliarity". Normally, when a being experiences unfamiliarity, it can resolve it, by gaining additional experiences, knowledge, or simply getting accustomed to circum
312.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> The documents are written on simple copy paper and lack any kind of security features. Wait, sorry, sorry, sorry, hold up, full stop...could you repeat that again? These orders arrive AS GODDAMN PAPER PRINTOUTS?!? Am I to understand
313.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> but is still useful, relevant The proposed test for responsiveness actually does test an aspect of responsiveness. The problem here is only in the definition of the variable to test: Yes, "responsiveness" isn't well defi
314.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> therefore we should believe it is intelligent, like humans are They can believe whatever they want, that doesn't mean I have to share their beliefs. Fact of the matter is: Without a definition of intelligence that doesn't inv
315.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> (as far as human interrogators can tell), And there's the problem again. The "Test" isn't evaluating a machine. It evaluates an interrogators response to that machine. The core problem of answering the question &q
316.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> then it'll also not pass the Turing test Chatterbots, including the 60s-era ELIZA, which are mostly useless for this kind of task, have repeatedly been shown to be able to trick people into chosing the machine during the Turing &q
317.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> For most practical (commercial?) purposes, "can a human be tricked" is a much more important property than "can it think". I disagree. In my experience human customers don't care much about whether its obvious
318.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Okay, I gave it 10 minutes and tried to find out what "Polylith" is about, skimming reading material found by following down links starting at the PyPi page. What I found was 10 minutes of LEGO-bricks analogies. What I didn't
319.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
The turing test, as has been often discussed, is pointless. Reason being that the tests results are determined at least as much, if not more, by the interrogator and the human interrogee as they are by the machine. It doesn't test &quo
320.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> you did not do the necessary due diligence to demonstrate I did all the necessary due dilligence. I was perfectly aware that the paper used a variation on the imitation game. I also read Turings paper long before this discussion starte
321.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> “Must answer” means the person under question must provide an answer to the question being asked. Yes, but it doesn't say what the answer has to be, it doesn't say it has to be correct, it doesn't say it has to have to d
322.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
I use both Firefox and Brave. No, I am not disturbed by Braves "involvement with crypto". It took me all of 3 minutes to deactivate every crypto-feature the browser has, they are pretty obvious in the settings. It forces nothing o
323.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> The Turing test is determined What does the Turing Test determine anyway? According to the paper, it is supposed to measure a machines intelligence, or rather more prosaically, answer the question "Can machines think?" But th
324.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> are you allowed to ask things about family, about what they had for breakfast, about where they're located and what's the weather out, about whether they saw the movie than opened last weekend? The interrogees are even allowe
325.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
I didn't miss anything. Your entire criticism so far hinges on my usage of silence as the answer. Alright. I'll modify the function only slightly. return "I don't want to talk about this." Replace that with
326.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> A must answer Oh really? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289523532_Taking_th...
327.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> But a human would not give the same answer (empty string) as your function. He doesn't have to. The simple fact that a human CAN do that is enough to make the determination in this case guesswork.
328.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> That’s an absurd and overly strict interpretation of what Turing described. No, it isn't. The turing test doesn't evaluate correctness of any answers, their sophistication, or even if there is an answer. All it evaluates is t
329.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
No it really isn't. The Turing test is just not an adequate methodology to determine intelligent behavior, and never was. This was already known way before generative ML models emerged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x2
330.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Oh, and just another observation about this point right here: > Bash does not have named parameters for its functions, let alone metadata on them… Come to think of it, actually a bash function can indeed have named parameters. Because th

More ›