> ...when people ask me about learning to code. I ask them if they're ok with sitting in front of a computer for many hours.
I wonder if this puts people off who shouldn't be put off.
I certainly don't think I'd want that for myself if asked. But coding doesn't feel like that. Sure, I sit in front of a computer for hours, but productive sessions generally involve losing track of time and realising you've been sat there for hours
Well, but there absolutely are such things as coincidences. It is obvious that coincidences are to be expected.
Combinatorial mathematics actually says certain types of coincidence happen more often than we seem to expect intuitively (eg. the Birthday "Paradox").
I have no particular view on AMD. But any argument that includes "I don't believe in coincidences" should probably be weakened in your estimation.
I don't see why it makes a difference for this purpose that you're replaying network packets or controller inputs or any other interface to the game engine.
The important thing is that there is some well-defined interface. I guess designing for networked multiplayer does probably necessitate that, but if the engine isn't deterministic it still isn't going to work.
There was a twitter thread years ago (which appears to be long gone) about how the SNES Pilot Wings pre-game demo was just a recording of controller inputs. For cartridges manufactured later in the game's life, a plane in the demo crashes rather than landing gracefully, due to a revised version of a chip in the cartridge. The inputs for the demo were never re-recorded, so the behaviour was off.
There was a recent ruling that LLM output is inherently public domain (presumably unless it infringes some existing copyright). In which case it's not possible to use them to "reimplement everything we can as copyleft".
I did think about this use-case as I was typing my first message.
I can see it working for complex products, for functionality I only want to use once in a blue moon. If it's something I'm doing regularly, I'd rather the LLM just tell me which submenu to find it in, or what command to type.
Have you ever had a chatbot solve your problem? I don't think this has ever happened to me.
As a reasonably technical user capable of using search, the only way this could really happen is if there was no web/app interface for something I wanted to do, but there was a chatbot/AI interface for it.
Perhaps companies will decide to go chatbot-first for these things, and perhaps customers will prefer that. But I doubt it to be honest - do people really want to use a fuzzy-logic CLI instead of a graphical interface? If not, why won't companies just get AI to implement the functionality in their other UIs?
Your docs are probably read many more times than they are written. It might be cheaper and quicker to produce them at 90% quality, but surely the important metric is how much time it saves or costs your readers?
In the same way it's better that adults are the recipients of the harms of smoking, drinking or gambling. It's still not desirable, but societies have settled upon thresholds for when people have some capacity to take responsibility for their choices.
Not saying those thresholds are always right and should definitely apply in this case, but it surely isn't an alien or non-obvious concept.
Others have suggested "bullshit". A bullshitter does not care (and may not know) whether what they say is truth or fiction. A bullshitter's goal is just to be listened to and seem convincing.
Linux goal is only for code compatibility - which makes complete sense given the libre/open source origins. If the culture is one where you expect to have access to the source code for the software you depend on, why should the OS developers make the compromises needed to ensure you can still run a binary compiled decades ago?
I think just be specific - a suicidal sixteen year-old was able to discuss methods of killing himself with an LLM by prompting it to role-play a fictional scenario.
No need to say he "lied" and then use an analogy of him lying to a human being, as did the comment I originally objected to.
So for me, it's not about being reductionist, but about not anthropomorphizing or using words which which may suggest an inappropriate ethical or moral dimension to interactions with a piece of software.
Mayyybe, but since the comment I objected to also used an analogy of lying to a person I felt it suggested some unwanted moral judgement (of a suicidal teenager).
I mean, for one thing, a commercial LLM exists as a product designed to make a profit. It can be improved, otherwise modified, restricted or legally terminated.
And "lying" to it is not morally equivalent to lying to a human.
I wonder if this puts people off who shouldn't be put off.
I certainly don't think I'd want that for myself if asked. But coding doesn't feel like that. Sure, I sit in front of a computer for hours, but productive sessions generally involve losing track of time and realising you've been sat there for hours