• 2 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • You can use more debug outputs (log(…)) to narrow it down. Challenge your assumptions! If necessary, check line by line if all the variables still behave as expected. Or use a debugger if available/familiar.

    This takes a few minutes tops and guarantees you to find at which line the actual behaviour diverts from your expectations. Then, you can make a more precise search. But usually the solution is obvious once you have found the precise cause.


  • I think that’s one of the best use cases for AI in programming; exploring other approaches.

    It’s very time-consuming to play out how your codebase would look like if you had decided differently at the beginning of the project. So actually comparing different implementations is very expensive. This incentivizes people to stick to what they know works well. Maybe even more so when they have more experience, which means they really know this works very well, and they know what can go wrong otherwise.

    Being able to generate code instantly helps a lot in this regard, although it still has to be checked for errors.











  • We also briefly discussed this in Games Master, if only to discover how wide and diverse the range of perspectives are. I feel it misrepresents the subject to talk about a “literal definition”, and to explicitly include “win conditions”. Because there are multiple attempts of a definition, and many do not include win conditions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game

    One such example definition:

    “To play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity.” (Bernard Suits)[14]

    You seem to refer to Chris Crawford’s definition, which is in part:

    If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.

    Explicitly calling SimCity “not a game” is purely academic talk, detached from reality. For everyone else, SimCity is clearly a game. If you want to buy it, you look for games, not toys. I feel definitions are questionable which define something to be not what everybody thinks it is.

    Was Minecraft not a game until it included “The End”? I loved playing Minecraft, but I rarely cared about The End, even after it was included. When a player cannot tell the difference between a version of a game which includes a win condition, and a version which does not, how can the existence of that condition be a decisive factor?

    If we widen the scope to include any game, not just video games, we can also have a look at popular children’s games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Association. My theater group loves to play win-free games as a warmup practice.

    From my point of view, win conditions are a common characteristic of games, but not necessary or defining. Coming up with a short definition which captures all games and excludes all non-games is surprisingly hard.


  • Headline:

    TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPENED TO MONKEYS AFTER GETTING NEURALINK IMPLANTS, ACCORDING TO VETERINARY RECORDS

    What are these terrible things?

    Up to a dozen monkeys suffered grisly fates after receiving a Neuralink implant, including brain swelling and partial paralysis.

    First is the case of the monkey “Animal 20.” In December 2019, an internal part of the brain implant being inserted into the primate “broke off” during surgery. Later that night, the monkey scratched at the implant site, drawing blood, and yanked on the implant, partially dislodging it. Follow-up surgery discovered that the wound was infected, but that the placement of the implant prevented treatment. The monkey was euthanized the next month.

    Before that, a female monkey designated “Animal 15” began to press her head against the ground after receiving the brain implant, pick at the site until it bled, and eventually lost coordination, shivering when personnel entered the room. Scientists discovered she had brain bleeding, and in March 2019, she too was euthanized.

    The following year, a primate called “Animal 22” was put down in March 2020 after its brain implant became so loose that the screws attaching it to the skull “could easily be lifted out,” according to a necropsy report.

    “The failure of this implant can be considered purely mechanical and not exacerbated by infection,” the necropsy states.

    As Wired notes, that statement alone seemingly contradicts Musk’s claims that no monkeys directly died from Neuralink brain implants.

    And so would the account of an ex-Neuralink employee, who told Wired that Musk’s claims that the monkeys were already terminally ill are “ridiculous,” even a “straight-up fabrication.”

    “We had these monkeys for a year or so before any surgery was performed,” the ex-employee said.

    The testimony of an anonymous scientist conducting research at CNPRC seems to corroborate the ex-employee’s allegations.

    “These are pretty young monkeys,” they told the magazine. “It’s hard to imagine these monkeys, who were not adults, were terminal for some reason.”


  • As per the article, it goes like this:

    1. AI is trained on publicly available data
    2. AI does not credit or compensate original authors
    3. People don’t like their work being used without
    4. People share less publicly
    5. Public spaces desert

    And simultaneously, AI content of poor quality drowns what is left.

    In terms of arguments, have you heard about control / alignment problem or x-risk?









  • Spzi@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlEnd users
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    10 months ago

    Me in tech support.

    Customer calls: “Internet is not working!!”

    Me: “Router lights status?”

    Customer: “Can’t tell.”

    Me: “Why?”

    Customer: “Router still in box.”

    Me: “…?”

    Me (pretends it was just an error of communication): “Can you please describe the lights on your router?”

    Customer: “I can’t. It’s still in the packaging. The box is on my table.”

    Me: “…??? … You … need at least electricity to power this device.”

    Customer spirals into rage and madness: “I ordered wireless internet!! I won’t plug any cables in! I did not want any wires!!!”