Journalists are not the ones who should be judging what is true and what is not. They don't have that skillset.

More to the point, they only care about things that make themselves look good. They want you to work slower so they can have an excuse to hire more people. The more people you manage, the more power you have.

The sad thing is modern neural networks usually use calculus in the training stage during backpropagation to calculate the gradient (which is also why making a neural network turing complete drastically increases the computation cost, since you can't take the derivative anymore).

This is basically what the HHGTTG had for AI for some of the robots, just a reward sensor and then let the robot figure out the problem itself.

APL is a cool language, and with a modern keyboard, the special characters are easy to type.

Great, maybe these people can add their insight to Wikipedia, since clearly no one thought of AI that way before 2015.

In fact, if we're going to be reductionist, we could say that incentives are also just math so put me on Wikipedia too, since no one has ever thought of that either!

btw, since you've read so much, you should consider writing a book yourself. You have a deep reading list that would power your aesthetic sense. The first attempt might not be great, but your writing on Slashdot has improved so much that sooner or later you would write something great.

I tend to agree, but they do have algorithmic infrastructure with a scalable graph over source code at scale.

I am fully willing to encourage people to spend their own money to do this kind of thing. In the worst case, they will help the world better understand the bounds of the technology. It's like a Red Bull challenge for programmers: "How good will the Chatbot be if we spend $100 billion on it?" (Pretty great, actually, but maybe the money would be better spent elsewhere, like on inventing new AI technology)

Yeah, what do you expect the human will be doing in this loop?

Either they will invent technology that doesn't exist yet, or they will fail. Those are the possibilities.

There is no part of Rust that is defined. Try linking to the language definition, it doesn't exist.

However, as I mentioned before, you are completely unable to admit it.

They're obviously not planning on looking at the output.

He put some scale in his scale.

Computers are guided by algorithms, amazing.

Even if you use AI, bullshit is still bullshit. That doesn't change.

If a software engineer can suprivise 1 million lines of code being written a month, then there is no job for software engineers anymore. A single person can't verify that much code in a month, so writing code would no longer be an important skill.

The difficulty here isn't the Rust (since literally anything can be rewritten in Rust with more or less difficulty); the difficulty here is the Ai.

Yeah, at that point you don't need a software engineer at all. You just need a manager to write the correct prompt. The engineer can't read all the code.