Not only more readable than A and B but I would argue it’s also easier to remember who did what a few sentences or paragraphs earlier since Alice and Bob invoke slightly less generic mental images than A and B. For example one is a woman and the other one is a man, maybe even some person or character you know.
And now that I’m thinking about it, the different gender also makes it easier to keep track of who does what because different pronouns are used (at least in English and many other languages).
I tried to look this up and while there were many many results, none of them seemed to really fit with OP’s question, so would you kindly tell us more about the gay Spock problem?
If you ever go to r/relationship_advice and read posts where their friend T did S with P and then A (23 F) got into with G, then yeah…Alice and Bob suddenly makes a lot of sense.
this, but doubly so with Eve. You’ll notice that we often skip over Cindy and Dave and go right to Eve, so often that I don’t even know off the top of my head whether Charlie and Deandra are the conventional names for persons 3 and 4 in this construct. That’s because this construct is used a lot when talking about secure communications and the convention is that “evil” “eavesdropping” Eve is the person trying to destroy, intercept or alter the communication between Alice and Bob. Her role is built into her name.
I used to have a big list of gender ambiguous names I’d use for examples. So I’d use “Alex” and “Blake” or something like that. It also had some non-anglo names on it, just to spice things up.
In comp sci papers there’s a few other common example people. “I” for intruder or imposter (Irene, Isaac). “M” often for malicious or middle-person (Mal). There’s a few more im forgetting now.
I’ve seen like 5 posts about “AI BF/GF” today and it never ceases to surprise me how fucking easy it is to dupe people with these products, like holy shit humanity is fucked.
I’m always waiting for another ethical disaster trend to end but everybody is always in line for Mr Bonez Wild Ride.
If all you need is a one sided conversation designed to make you feel better, LLM’s are great at concocting such “pep talks”. For some, that just might be enough to male it believable. The Turing test was cracked years ago, only now do we have access to things that can do that for free*.
A pretty early chatbot called Eliza simulated a non-directive psychotherapist. It kind of feels like they’ve improved hugely but not really changed much.
Nah, bullshit, so far these LLM’s are as likely to insult or radicalize you as comfort you. That won’t ever be solved until AGI becomes commonplace, which won’t be for a long ass time. These products are failures at launch.
… Have you tried any of the recent ones? As it stands chatGPT and Gemini are both built with guardrails strong enough to require custom inputs to jailbreak, with techniques such as Reinforcement learning from Human Feedback uses to lobotomize misconduct out of the AI’s.
It’s wild that people brag that it’s able to do essentially the same as copying and pasting someone else’s basic code but with only a few extra imagined errors sprinkled in for fun but that just makes it more useful for pretending you aren’t again lljust literally copying someone else’s stuff.
It’s a search engine that makes up 1/8 of all it says. But sure it’s super useful.
Oh thanks, I really wanted to read another defence of an unethical product by some fanboy with no life. I’m so glad you managed to pick up on that based on my previous comments. I love it. You chose a great conversation to start here.
The tech is great at pretending to be human. It is simply a next “word” (or phrase) predictor. It is not good at answering obscure questions, writing code or making a logical argument. It is good at simulating someone.
It is my experience that it approximates a human well, but it doesn’t get the details right (like truthness or reflecting objective reality), making it useless for essay writing, but great for stuff like character AI and other human simulations.
If you are right, give an actual Iogical response only capable by a human, as opposed to a generic ad hominem. I repeat my question, Have you actually used any of the GPT3 era models?
It’s a very nuanced situation, but the people being sold these products and buying them are expecting a sentient robot lover. They’re getting another shitty chatbot that inevitably fails to meet bare minimum companionship standards such as not berating you.
There currently exists no ethical use of LLM AI. Your comment can be construed as defence of malicious people and actions.
I’ve never met anyone who uses them, but I’m also not sure people actually think it’s sentient. I’m sure some do, but I’d assume the vast majority are just looking to have a conversation, and they don’t care if it’s with a person or a (pretty good) chat bot.
Also, there is a way to use it ethically. As the post mentions, run it locally and know what you’re doing with it. I don’t see any issues if you’re aware of what it is, just as I don’t see any issue using auto-correct or any other technology. We don’t need to go full Butlerian (yet).
You are coming at this from your perspective which knows them to not be real. That’s not gonna be how the average moron thinks and there is more of them than you think. And they absolutely believe their is a tiny sentient brain somewhere in there that is alive. I’m all for people doing what makes them happy but also this is a loneliness confirming hole to get trapped in and absolutely opens doors to influence people through their imaginary friends that they think they can trust.
You’re also a programming language design nerd? Like, “Compare the features of language A to those of language B”, or nerding out about the underlying mechanics of things like generic types, virtual method dispatch, and no-stop garbage collection? I thought I was the only one. Well not the only one but it doesn’t seem that popular of a thing to nerd out over.
I’m too new to know too much about the underlying mechanics, but yes I find it very interesting, including the syntax, which I know most nerds dismiss as superficial.
I’m definitely biased because I love the language, but I think Go is a good place to start. The authors talk about the language design more than I’ve seen for other languages. The Go blog occasionally has posts like that but Russ Cox’s blog is the place to go for the gnarly details. Another good place is the proposals repo, e.g. the generics proposal. I also browse issues on GitHub and look for ones with interesting discussions.
including the syntax, which I know most nerds dismiss as superficial.
Syntax is mostly irrelevant as far as what is possible with a language, but it is a critical aspect of how easy/hard it is to use a language, and most critically how easy/hard it is to read code written in that language. IMO the only thing that’s more important than readability is whether the code works as intended.
The axis aren’t labeled properly. That’s likely why we can’t make sense of the diagrams.
Everyone elses life oscillates over time between positive and negative… OP’s life’s Y is X cubed. And it somehow contains big blue dots on the whole numbers… They consider that odd. And I’d agree.
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.