Thank you for the very clear and concise example of precisely what I was talking about.

You zoomed right in on a very specific thing that humans normally do that the computer didn't do in this case, and then declared that this is exactly computers aren't intelligent. The irony is you were talking about a computer that can write code; people have been saying for decades that computers aren't intelligent precisely because they can't write code! Furthermore, the example you gave only sometimes happens; most of the time when you give an LLM a correction like that, it incorporates your correction just like a human would. Some LLMs are better at this than others.

For clarity, I am not asserting that computers qualify as intelligent. That is not my position. But I am pointing out that your answer as to why they don't qualify is philosophically sloppy and has no scientific basis. You are just latching on to whatever random thing is in front of your face at the moment as an example of behavior that doesn't seem intelligent. The very moment you use a better LLM that can do exactly what this one could not, you would just look harder for some other thing that humans do that it doesn't, and repeat.

When people are speaking "naturally" (which is to say, without scientific or philosophical precision), the word "intelligence" is a vague and sloppy word that rolls in all kinds of mental abilities, including and in particular "conscious experience."

When people say "the LLM doesn't actually understand anything" for the most part they are using the word "understand" to mean "hold the concepts in conscious awareness." For them, intelligence requires consciousness (or just "life") which they expect computers don't have.

So, they will continue to argue that computers aren't intelligence in the "important" sense of the word, no matter how much one might drill them for precision. And this is the primary reason why the definition of "artificial intelligence" remains a perpetual moving target. As has been said before, "artificial intelligence is whatever computers can't do yet." People just jump from one random thing that humans can do, that computers can't, to another, like a skier bouncing from one mogul to the next, because these are just demonstrations of the "core thing" which is nothing more than their own sense of being a conscious being (which they still think computer's aren't).

"Pretend Intelligence" is what the word "Artificial Intelligence" already means.

This isn't a "meme". This is an effort at public humiliation before sentencing.

One need not "reflexively defend perpetrators" in order to be interested in objective truth. Blurring out an image to protect identity is one thing. Outright altering it like this shows events that didn't happen. It's an outright lie.

We are supposed to read this and think "wow, if it can do that, then surely it can replace several of these expensive programmers that I have on my staff!"

And yet....it can't....

Bubble bubble pop pop, bubble bubble pop.
The world is getting tired of all your AI slop.
The leaders all say it takes you to the top,
But once you see the numbers, your hopes and dreams will drop.

Vendors all say the revolution has begun,
The days of writing code are now all but done,
The battle for human hearts and minds is won,
Smart investors are gonna turn and run.

(composed without the use of AI)

Anyone want to add a few verses?

Maybe there was a bug they aren't telling us about, like something that allowed people to bypass DRM when consuming some form of media. THAT will get Microsoft's actual clients really angry and demand an immediate resolution.

Something that puts us all at risk of being victimized by criminals, on the other hand, can be buried in the priority queue for months or years.

I imagine that Microsoft's dev team is under the same irrational deadline pressure that all other dev teams face. Business owners perpetually insist that development is taking to long and that we are doomed if this doesn't get out the door in time. It's even worse now that they think "there, you have AI, so where's my 10x productivity gain?" The real irony being that even if they did get a bonafide 10x productivity gain (by any means), it would feel to them like things slowed down a little bit, because their sense of how fast things are going is mostly a function of how much they want to accomplish, and that goal always expands to exceed their productive capacity.

So, everything is rushed out and buggy, even (and especially) from a company like Microsoft. Enough resources to buy multiple sovereign nations, and still unable to produce reliable software.

I wonder why there is a steady stream of articles about how much more productive AI has made employees coming from companies that sell AI-powered solutions. Why don't we get a similarly steady stream of such articles from companies that don't sell anything AI-related?

(For clarity: these questions are rhetorical).

Medicine is as effective as exercise for depression?

This is how sociopaths think. They ask questions like "Would this benefit me?" and "Am I big enough to get away with it?"

Thoughts like "is it ethical?" or "does it harm others?" or even "is it illegal?" Don't even enter their minds.

They just make up their own rules. "You cannot bot-around through our site, but we can and will bot-around through yours, and we can and will advertise your stuff on our site (incorrectly) sending you problems and expecting you to be grateful for that, and if you don't like it you can opt out after the damage is done." The article doesn't say how one opts-out. I wonder how easy (and free) that process is...

What you are saying about salt is simply not true.

Not at all!

In the case of saturated fats, there is ongoing debate with evidence both ways. I am not going to bother to cite any of it because it clearly won't make a difference. Wherever you are getting your health information from, it clearly isn't reputable studies.

You really should get a proper education on the relevant facts before forming opinions on such important topics, and especially before you go trying to convince others that you know what you are talking about.

I agree with you. This article is saying exactly what employers want to hear, in a very matter-of-fact and highly enthusiastic way. "Oh sure, one guy does the work of 10 now. It's totally easy and anyone can do it. Just buy my product!" It's not, however, providing any kind of objective metrics that this is even true, nor indicator that this productivity level applies to all project types, nor whether the code stays maintainable in the long term.

The article states that opting for this pricier bot and pipeline solves the biggest problem of AI-assisted development: the need for humans to correct the bot's mistake. I don't believe for a nanosecond they they have solved this problem just by throwing more bots into the mix.

When there's proof, that's when I will believe it. For now, what we have here looks a lot more like grift.

Based on how this thread went, it appears the answer is "no, the democrats aren't ready to have an honest conversation. All they want to do is spew hatred and project their own bigotry."

Sad.

I wish I could say "I never use Microsoft Office for anything, it's all just LibreOffice!"

But, unfortunately, I have a job. My employer (like nearly all employers) requires the use of "Microsoft 365 Copilot App".

I found a few job listings that are Linux-focused....they paid significantly less than what I am making.

So, I guess, I have been bribed into using this garbage. That's the bottom line then: I hate Microsoft products so much they literally have to pay me to use them.