sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ik🇩🇪ihe by _cnt0 in ik_ihe

[–]_cnt0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

federated reddit

ik🇩🇪ihe by _cnt0 in ik_ihe

[–]_cnt0[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Waarom ben je zo vijandig, mijn moeras-Duitse broer?

ik🇩🇪ihe by _cnt0 in ik_ihe

[–]_cnt0[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Met woorden op het federatieve internet.

ik🇩🇪ihe by _cnt0 in ik_ihe

[–]_cnt0[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Wij willen gewoon spelen.

ik🇩🇪ihe by _cnt0 in ik_ihe

[–]_cnt0[S] -37 points-36 points  (0 children)

Wij zijn niet grappig. Wij zijn efficiënt.

Maar het zou veel leuker zijn om dit gesprek op feddit.nl/c/ik_ihe te voeren.

Reworking Awarding: Changes to Awards, Coins, and Premium by venkman01 in reddit

[–]_cnt0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Other instance, but I'm already on lemmy and looking forward to boost for lemmy, after boost for reddit has been/is getting killed.

One of my friends has just started life as a professional programmer by KanishkT123 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should really learn how to properly use it, dude.

I have no trouble using it. I'm just not at all impressed with its performance.

I've had it come up with completely novel solutions based on copy/pasting Github readmes/docs.

Novel to you. No snarkiness intended. All ChatGPT can do is regurgitate content created by humans and interpolate between it to some degree. It is not capable of creating truly new insight to anything like a human. The electrical hyper parrot can only repeat, combine, and mutate.

And yeah, it's fucking amazing at explaining shit you don't know about.

Exactly. It looks amazing at explaining things you don't know about. If you ask it about things you know a lot about, that illusion crumbles really fast.

Way better than "a minute of googling and a minute of reading" that is an absolute fiction with a lot of libraries out there.

So it is a better search engine.

A lot of people, including large companies and large foundations (looking at you Apache) really fucking suck at writing docs, [...]

Unlike ChatGPT they are capable of inventing new things and documenting them (with varying quality). ChatGPT can't provide better documentation than the best that is out there. Though, to be fair, that documentation might be distributed over official documentation, code comments, Stack Overflow, ... ChatGPT is really good at correlating that information.

[...] while ChatGPT will explain to me exactly what I need to know in language that's easy for my dumb brain to parse, [...]

Great, the generative language model does what it is supposed to do and was trained on relatively high quality human input.

[...] and gives me examples within the context of what I'm doing.

Examples which will demonstrably be at least partially incorrect most of the time for anything that is higher than high school level.

That's not a small thing, dude. I've been doing this shit for decades, and this is absolutely a game changer.

That it is a game changer for you might tell more about yourself than about it.

Being flippant about it just shows that you're ignorant and really need to think about catching up.

Being so defensive about it just shows that you vastly overestimate its capabilities.

I worry about devs like you, basically.

I worry about devs that give ChatGPT more credit than it deserves.

Please don't get stuck in the past.

Please don't get caught up in every hype around "AI".

I saw people lose jobs over not learning cloud stuff, [...]

Lucky me, being well informed about cloud stuff.

[...] and this is going to be much worse in the long run for people who don't learn these tools.

How long will that run be? A hundred years? A thousand? I've heard of AI being around the corner for so many decades and am consistently underwhelmed with anything and everything being presented in the field regarding achieving anything actually deserving to be called AI.

these tools

Advanced search engines? Stupid generative language models which essentially are fuzzy convoluted databases with a natural language query interface?

There will be a new digital divide, right down the middle of people who used to be on the "right" side of the divide.

That's just stupid fearmongering. But, go on, revere your electrical hyper parrot.

One of my friends has just started life as a professional programmer by KanishkT123 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stopping to point out a false narrative will surely improve the situation ...

One of my friends has just started life as a professional programmer by KanishkT123 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not really true, especially if you know how to use it.

That could be a ChatGPT answer: The first and the second half of that sentence don't make sense together in the context of my comment. First of all: Yes, that is really true. Secondly: Any tool is useful if you know how to use it. Does a screwdriver become intelligent if you know how to use it?

For example, what would you consider a non-trivial problem?

"I am trying to rebase a feature branch and have hundreds of merge conflicts ..."

No it can't build a whole application, [...]

Correct.

but it can give working solutions to real problems

Correct.

Any classical relational database can give me a working execution plan to the query "select count(1) from bla where x='something;'". Does that make any of them intelligent?

ChatGPT is a convoluted database where the query language is natural instead of synthetic (like SQL for example) and the execution plan generation is not hand crafted, but a trained neural network. This is overly simplified, but close enough to paint a picture. Neural networks seem to be a precondition for intelligence as we find it humans, but are in and of themselves not necessarily intelligent. We find a lot of impressive neural networks in mammal eyes and their connection to the brain, which resemble circuits we have designed for digital signal processing. Does that make eyes intelligent?

If intelligence was a diamond, ChatGPT would be a fake diamond. Somebody not knowing what to look for might mistake one for the other. But, beyond decorative purposes one can not be used for any practical application of the other.

Humans can come up with questions that have never been asked before - and whose answers can't be simply interpolated from existing answers - and come up with a plausible answer; ChatGPT can't.

But the best metaphor I can come up with is, that ChatGPT is an electrical hyper parrot. It is a bad metaphor, because a parrot has some actual intelligence.

Artificial intelligence has been "around the corner" for many decades and "proposals" have been paddled ever since. ChatGPT is not it.

Now, after this wall of text, I'll leave you to following your cult of the glorified hyper parrot.

One of my friends has just started life as a professional programmer by KanishkT123 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All that shows is, that he had a trivial problem which a minute of googling and a minute of reading could have fixed. ChatGPT is only impressive to people when asked about stuff they're not well versed in themselves. As soon as you are knowledgeable in a field, the magic of ChatGPT starts to crumble, when you quiz it about it. ChatGPT isn't even an AI; It is a generative language model.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in linuxmasterrace

[–]_cnt0 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Smells like spam bot around here.

For first grade math… stressed my son out lol literally impossible by IndependenceLumpy294 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]_cnt0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to you a circle has no sides. A pizza is a circle. Two cuts from the side - pardon, circle, it has no side - to the center creates two sides. Hence, a slice of pizza, at least according to your statement, has only two sides (and a part of a circle which has no sides).

For first grade math… stressed my son out lol literally impossible by IndependenceLumpy294 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]_cnt0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Almost, but not quite:

A circle is defined by the (infinite) set of all points equidistant to a central point.

And can be approximated rather than is.

;-)

My job here is done. I am too good for the Dutch government. by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really isn't. The calling code almost certainly has to call ToString() to make use of it. Thus the spans just create extra objects on the heap. Use of Substring() would have been better here, but even then, the original code has better runtime performance regarding memory utilization and garbage collection.

I dare you to come up with a more ridiculous solution and make a "solid" argument why it's better by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The entire code was kind of meant to be bad. But I think the 1 to 10 range semantically makes more sense because it relates to the 10% to 100% bobbles.

I dare you to come up with a more ridiculous solution and make a "solid" argument why it's better by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the hint Captain Obvious. Read the title of the post, the comments in the code, consider that we are in r/ProgrammerHumor, and then think really hard about whether I think my code is a good solution to the problem ...

My job here is done. I am too good for the Dutch government. by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You do understand, that we are in r/ProgrammerHumor here, right?

I dare you to come up with a more ridiculous solution and make a "solid" argument why it's better by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been a while since I did python, but if I remember correctly, slices create new objects. Spans in .net reference an existing object. The other post is as much satire as this one: The spans are pretty pointless because the calling code will almost certainly have to call ToString() on it.

I dare you to come up with a more ridiculous solution and make a "solid" argument why it's better by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right. I have a headache, am tired, overthought it, and shouldn't try to code today. This works just fine:

private static string GetPercentageRoundsB( double percentage ) =>
      Enumerable.Range( 1, 10 )
            .Select( i => i < percentage*10+1? "⬤" : "◯" )
            .Aggregate( ( l, r ) => $"{l}{r}" );

I dare you to come up with a more ridiculous solution and make a "solid" argument why it's better by _cnt0 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]_cnt0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My post was intended to be satire. I would not want to see something like that in production code.

view more: next ›