I think that snippet is perfectly reasonable if you are an individual or a small team in charge of the whole stack. This line of code is unlikely ever to change. Contrast this with React+Redux, where the code must constantly change to accommodate schema changes from the backend. The React project thus changes more often, but this is a false sense of maintainability. Further, imagine the 200+ dependencies a starter React app requires and how all of these must be kept up to date.
It would look even worse on their part, and there will probably still be a lot of people boycotting Reddit by their own volition regardless of how the site operates.
This is an important distinction but it simplifies the situation in my opinion. A 3 year old may only see one cat, but it has probably seen many other things in its life already. Humans likely also have prewired neurology to recognise eyes and other common features. So the analogy is seem more to me like one-shot or few-shot learning with an already partially trained model.
I have increasingly become disinterested in CGI-heavy movies. I have taken to watching more foreign-language films, which seem to still be more interpersonal and grounded in reality. I say this as a person who would usually prefer sci-fi and fantasy over other genres, which are the genres which are historically the most heavy in CGI and VFX.
This is my feeling exactly, it is a semantic auto-complete. Should/can it write your core business logic? Probably not, but there is a good chance it can infer and suggest logical patterns in implementation.
This is actually the primary message I got from the recent Bing announcement and demos. When the new Bing makes a suggestion for a TV, Microsoft wants to have sold those suggestion spots to the highest bidder.
Out of curiosity, what would you say is hardest constraint on this (brain replication) happening? Do you think that it would be an limitation on imaging/scanning technology?
Politeness is an orthogonal concept to truth. The article clearly states that programming philosophies "can be boiled down into a simple statement", and the comment you were referring to takes issue with this.
I find the idea of a manifesto in software quite off-putting, since it is inherently idealogical. The ideology itself might have redeeming factors, but I think that it is a poor vehicle for conveying ideas. This manifesto is written in the first-person ("There's something I call fixing a bug by sedimentation"), but it is trying to be universal. If this person has opinions on software engineering, why not just voice those as an individual?
This book is a bit divisive, but I will mention it anyway. I have been reading "Infinite Jest" by David Wallace this year. While being fiction from the late 90s, I think it predicts some developments in the modern attention economy freakishly well. I am only half way through, so I am hesitant to recommend it, but I have truly read nothing like it.
The really bizarre thing is that I found myself enjoying this podcast, perhaps even more than the average Joe Rogan podcast. This didn't feel quite as hollow as the average AI-generated content.
I am purely speculating, but the ritualistic behaviour in humans might be an attribute which allows complex multi-step instructions to propagate over generations. Pattern identification is similar in this way, in that a small amount dramatically increases problem-solving within individuals/populations but at the extreme creates dogmatism.
I can see how this would elicit quite a negative response, but getting an app onto the App Store requires non-trivial fees. Even just code-signing an app requires money that could be better spent otherwise. This money would have had to have come from somewhere, and I don't think 9 euros is unreasonable.
The strength of projects like LibreOffice is not that they are monetarily free (Google Docs exists), but that the source code is open.
The one thing I did not appreciate with the documentary was how "historic" footage was edited to be 4:3 aspect ratio with artificial grain. This made it look like these segments were filmed in the 90's rather than 2013. I can understand how this can emphasise the difference between footage shot now and 9 years ago, but it made the documentary feel inauthentic somehow.
I think this is actually the interesting part. It appears to understand some causality in spite of never being trained this. GPT-3 seems to be able to do arithmetic with small numbers, but begins to fail with larger equations. This seems congruous to how humans may internalise arithmetic. As far as we know, we do not have an ALU in the brain.
I agree with this, which is why the idea of fusion energy is both exciting and terrifying (and why governments may even be hesitant to disclose breakthroughs). In the theoretical ideal, fusion energy would provide such a surplus of energy that it could rewrite borders and trade deals overnight.