Interesting article about AI

[Joanna from IRC]

Zvoni, the thing I fear most is a monoculture filled with a bunch of miserable fake choices and irrelevant hype. Kind of like going into a grocery store and there being 20 types of cooked orange juice and no chance of finding fresh orange juice.

In many ways the internet is less good than it was decades ago. It once was full of interesting things, now it’s been commercialized and search engines just give me what they decide I should see instead of what I want. I remember when searches let me eliminate things I wasn’t interested in. It seems to be impossible to exclude .com addresses from search results. Has anyone ever tried this?

[Khrys]

It seems to be impossible to exclude .com addresses from search results. Has anyone ever tried this?

Google supports some special operators, try adding  "-.com"  to your search (example search for amazon)

[440bx]

For one thing I’m curious how you control the access to data without any private or protected sections?

The structure of the code determines the structure of the data (and vice versa) which in turn determines accessibility.

The "private", "protected", etc are just crutches needed by OOP to accomplish what decently designed code accomplishes automatically.  Just like the convention to prefix fields with "F" is a poor idea to mitigate bad design inherent in OOP code and data structures.

You want to make a credible point about OOP ?  take some code I've posted here,  OOP it and show that your OOP-ed version uses the same or fewer resources (memory, CPU and storage), along with it being easier to understand, expand and maintain. The day I see that, I'll have a good reason to revisit my evaluation of OOP.  Good luck (try going to Lourdes, who knows...)

Well, well, well: do you trust the Encyclopedia's that your parents had from theirs, or bought for you for your studies?
I have Elsevier, Spectrum, Brittanica and a lithuanian one. Noone of them are currently reliable.

I trust it a lot more than anything A.I might blurt.  The information found in a good encyclopedia might be outdated but at least, at one time, it was considered correct.  No one, except the user, is verifying what A.I blurts. IOW, it is peer reviewed by _one_ peer.  There is definitely room for improvement there.

[Curt Carpenter]

The real magic won't happen until competing AI systems start feeding on/off each other.

[TRon]

The real magic won't happen until competing AI systems start feeding on/off each other.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this wrongly but feeding AI with AI generated content has already been proofed to be a failure. It behaves exactly like a copy-machine, with each iteration generating less quality until utter failure.

AI can be considered just that, a glorified copy-(paste)machine.

[alpine]

The real magic won't happen until competing AI systems start feeding on/off each other.

+1

Perhaps I am misinterpreting this wrongly but feeding AI with AI generated content has already been proofed to be a failure. It behaves exactly like a copy-machine, with each iteration generating less quality until utter failure.

Convergence is guaranteed in the presence of feedback loop, regardless of who will feed whom, e.g. Ai <-> consumers <-> Ai 

[Curt Carpenter]

Convergence is guaranteed in the presence of feedback loop, regardless of who will feed whom, e.g. Ai <-> consumers <-> Ai 

I would expect something more like an emergent "Lorenz system" -- not convergent, but chaotic.   Capable of producing something like our species managed in the first half of the 20th century.  All that's missing is the "curiosity" unit in one or more of the programs...

[Joanna from IRC]

The structure of the code determines the structure of the data (and vice versa) which in turn determines accessibility.

440bx that Explanation is a bit vague. I know nothing about your code and it would be just as counterproductive for me to ask you how to rewrite all the Lazarus lcl libraries without oop. 
I want to learn more about how you survive without using oop purely out of curiosity.
Suppose you were making a program to make a cake and you’re not allowed to use objects. Are you using records instead? Can you elaborate?

[440bx]

440bx that Explanation is a bit vague. I know nothing about your code and it would be just as counterproductive for me to ask you how to rewrite all the Lazarus lcl libraries without oop. 
I want to learn more about how you survive without using oop purely out of curiosity.

As a well known programmer says "talk is cheap, show me the code", at this link https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,67665.msg521439.html#msg521439
you'll find a number of programs I wrote.  I suggest you look at ZydisInfoC.  The "A" and "B" versions are meant to be close to their original C counterparts.   The "C" version (ZydisInfoC) is closer to what I'd normally write.

I suggest the following: you rewrite that program (ZydisInfoC) using OOP and the LCL then we compare them.  Of course that means your version has to have all the features of the original for the comparison to be valid.  My program serves as the spec, all you have to do is show OOP can implement the feature set while operating as the spec in a way that is superior to the reference one which is pure procedural programming.

That way instead of throwing endless theories into the pixel winds, we can compare and measure factual results.

Now... show me the code

[Bogen85]

Despite 440bx and I differing in opinions and approaches on some subjects....

In this thread I agree far more with 440bx than with OP...

Hypothetical abstract programming thought experiments can never replace real world experience with programming...

If OP won't venture outside of small isolated world and work on programming teams, have to maintain and rewrite others code, multiple times, spanning years and decades, and in general experience other programming paradigms, then OP's grasping and understanding other programming ideas and concepts will always be difficult.

And the same things will be explained to OP multiple times, and no real learning will occur.

[lainz]

This is getting off topic, it was about AI, now about programming paradigms...

[440bx]

This is getting off topic, it was about AI, now about programming paradigms...

I agree.

I'm definitely not going to rewrite your program which
I know nothing about about in oop.

I knew absolutely nothing about Zydis when I wrote those programs and what I had to help myself was C code.  At least I'm offering you Pascal code.

In order for you to have some idea of why I am so staunchly against OOP you need to compare the results obtained with both paradigms.  Since you advocate for OOP then you should be the one to have the opportunity to produce the best that can be done with OOP.

Lainz has a good point about this stuff suspiciously looking (and possibly being) off topic but the point that is not off topic is that when you criticize something then you must provide some reasonably good supporting evidence and you definitely could improve that area of your argument.

I have a number of problems with A.I, among them:

1. It has no problem solving ability whatsoever.
2. It is unable to evaluate the correctness of the "solutions" it offers.
3. It seems to be little more than a plagiarism engine which, at least in some cases, could have some undesirable legal implications and it does not seem to ever credit the original authors (which, at least  by some standards, is unethical.)
4. the financial interests peddling A.I rarely, if ever, disclose the above problems.  On the contrary, they seem to purposely ignore/cover them up (they have that in common with some OOP proponents.)

However used very carefully it can be useful and that usefulness depends on the activity and its user's _ability_ to detect the totally worthless B.S it can easily generate (rather common occurrence when it's asked to solve programming problems.)

[Sieben]

At it's core AI still is just about pattern recognition, now famously extended to recreate those patterns it has just recognized. While pattern recognition sure is a prerequisite of intelligence it is far from being sufficient.

[LV]

I have a number of problems with A.I, among them:

1. It has no problem solving ability whatsoever.
2. It is unable to evaluate the correctness of the "solutions" it offers.
3. It seems to be little more than a plagiarism engine which, at least in some cases, could have some undesirable legal implications and it does not seem to ever credit the original authors (which, at least  by some standards, is unethical.)
4. the financial interests peddling A.I rarely, if ever, disclose the above problems.  On the contrary, they seem to purposely ignore/cover them up (they have that in common with some OOP proponents.)

However used very carefully it can be useful and that usefulness depends on the activity and its user's _ability_ to detect the totally worthless B.S it can easily generate (rather common occurrence when it's asked to solve programming problems.)

These issues are being worked on.

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

[Joanna from IRC]

In order for you to have some idea of why I am so staunchly against OOP you need to compare the results obtained with both paradigms.  Since you advocate for OOP then you should be the one to have the opportunity to produce the best that can be done with OOP.

Lainz has a good point about this stuff suspiciously looking (and possibly being) off topic but the point that is not off topic is that when you criticize something then you must provide some reasonably good supporting evidence and you definitely could improve that area of your argument.

440bx Do you think I care if people use oop? Seriously? I am not going to spend my spare time reworking your code into oop unless I was going to be using and improving your code.

The fact that you couldn’t demonstrate the superiority of non oop code for the simple example of oop code I presented to does not impress me. I was hoping you would be willing to show me how non oop code is better.

Bogen85 you know next to nothing about what I do or if I have rewritten other people’s code.{I have!} Just because I don’t share code publicly doesn’t mean that I do nothing.

You claim to be an expert in everything related to programming yet refused to give me an explanation in layman’s terms about something I asked you about. Instead you told me to “go read some books”  sorry but unquestioning rote memorization isn’t my thing. If someone is unable to answer questions about the ideas that they are advocating I rightfully start to question the validity of those ideas.

AI is much like bogen85’s dogmatic unwavering faith in books. We are just supposed to believe that it magically provides correct answers to everything.
Personally I’ve never used it but I doubt that it discloses it’s sources when giving answers does it? If it did nobody would want it. It just gathers up a lot of data including the intellectual property of people who never consented for their creations to be used by third parties to profit from. I also doubt that AI provides you with the names of the authors of the code responsible for the answers being provided. There is no attribution whatsoever is there?

You are not allowed to know who the developers of AI are nor their sources. Questioning the Anonymous developers is not allowed. You’re just supposed to trust and believe like a religious faith.

As far as I’m concerned, the information provided by AI is about as trustworthy as anonymous text scribbled upon the wall inside of a public restroom stall.