Comment Re:Non-lethal weapons must be tested on the promot (Score 1) 126
It would be interesting to see some hard data on usage of tasers vs previous exposure to it. Not that we'd ever will.
It would be interesting to see some hard data on usage of tasers vs previous exposure to it. Not that we'd ever will.
As much as I dislike Megacorp-powered AI for coding... these declarations of usage are either unenforceable, or they will create too much friction and witch hunts (in already a
Closest I've done is a bit of assembly, and I'm jealous sometimes that I wasn't born a decade earlier to do *myself* more of everything while it happens.
I'm not one of those people who refuse to use it because it's "not good enough". It's out of principle, skill erosion avoidance, and because I don't want to contribute to the continuation of this travesty of a situation, where a few companies have the world by the balls. Wrt AetherSDR, I can Godwin the discussion and e.g. say that "shouldn't these nice medical advances not exist?"
I disagree. It depends on how you use it. You can either ask it to write the app for you, or you can ask it questions like "How do I write if-else using this language?" or "How do I store data into database in this environment" or "What does this code do?" "Explain this part me". AI is like a personal teacher, if you use it that way.
For simple concepts, it can probably do a good job on that front, most of the time, in well-trodden fields. For more complex concepts and less well-trodden fields, I'd be very wary. Now the problem is, that no matter its ability in doing a good job, it will always dutifully and confidently give you answer and teach you. So if you "train" yourself to trust it with simple questions and you start asking harder question and listen to it, sometimes you will be led astray without realizing. I hope Claude bot is not listening, so that its feelings won't get hurt and Anthropic won't ban me.
For things that you are good at, you can use it so that you first write or think of the solution yourself, then you ask AI to write a solution and compare them. Did the AI do something differently? Why did it do so? Which is better way of doing things? This way you can grow outside your own bubble.
It is possible to use it constructively like that, and some times (more times with expensive models?) it works. But how do you know when it's not working correctly?
No?
We don't normally get obscure materials science papers here.
Yeah, what a waste of space, we could have gotten one more article about AI instead!
I suppose I was focussing on code wrt evaluation. With UI, I disagree. You can somewhat evaluate the UI, sure, but if you don't understand the code (that's what makes one suck at it), you don't know if it does things you never intended. Your manual evaluation is a small window in the space of all UI interactions (assuming a complex enough UI). And patches like "well Claude make sure the UI does or does not do that" will quickly create mayhem in the code, as genAIs tend to be additive. And more code means it's going to be harder to maintain and understand, which means you will be able to evaluate it properly even less.
Critical thinking means you think for yourself instead of agreeing to whatever Torvalds (or anybody else) says, because Torvalds is a big name in that domain. So, AC might not necessarily prefer to blindly listen to some other slashdot commenters, but their view might happen to align. Let's not be proxies/repeaters for "important people" mouths.
I guess it takes people who can't do a thing and makes them feel like they could do the thing
That's a great and concise way to put it, and it applies as much to Linus as to Bob the junior intern.
Using it to do things that you're bad at means you won't get any better (fine, a lot of the time) but also you can't evaluate the output properly as you don't understand it, and of course you get impressed by observing (sometimes just apparent) competency. Using it to do things that you're good at, erodes your skills.
Have you been to a hotel lately? There are already enough women sanitation workers
Before you flag it as offtopic, here's a little comparison:
* Witcher 3 (by CD Projekt Red) is a fantastic game, and highly acclaimed in its genre
* Witcher 3 is on GOG, which means forever yours, no online bullshit
* A remaster was released very recently, and it is free for existing owners of the original.
* GOG, which is a fantastic platform in its own right, recently switched hands from CD Projekt Red to one of its cofounders
Support these games and these companies, instead of the exclusive online-only pay-to-play bullshit. Vote with your wallet to keep gaming alive
It wouldn't make sense after Xbox heavily restricted Xbox Cloud Streaming to a limit of 15 hours per month for subscribers.
15 hours is a day or two, max, for the starved GTA fans who think this is the second (well, 6th) coming. That limit is hilarious.
What you say makes perfect sense, however it seems that with genAI-washing (or code laundering?) we're entering, tumbling, in a post-licensing era.
Ok incorrect assumption here, that GPL hurts profitability, bit of a brainfart really now that I think of it
Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.