Interesting article about AI

[Bogen85]

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.

I don't recall making that claim, because I certainly am not.

As far as reading books, it is about digesting knowledge, not rote memorization.

Oh well.

[440bx]

440bx Do you think I care if people use oop? Seriously?

You must, otherwise you wouldn't be making unsupported, implicit and explicit, statements about OOP being better than pure procedural programming.

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 reason you should do it is to learn and to validate (or in this case falsify) your unfounded beliefs.

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.

hmmmm....  let's get a few things straight, this isn't about impressing you and I really could not care less whether you are impressed or not.  I demonstrated the superiority of non-OOP code because you did not offer an OOP alternative to challenge the non-OOP code I presented.  If you worked on a non-OOP alternative to that program, you'd learn  about assembler. dis-assembly, creating interfaces to accomplish both of those activities.  Those among others but... no, you'd rather compare some mindless trivial stuff which is woefully insufficient to draw valid conclusions from instead of making a real effort to produce something that would be relevant.

A program to make a cake ???  when I make a cake I follow a recipe.  Likely even A.I can do that (which is a different thing than coming up with a recipe for a new, original cake.)

As far as developing software without OOP, it seems that some people, you among them, have conveniently forgotten that very complex software has been written decades before OOP was even a hallucination in someone's mind. 

A.I is having the impact it's having because it promotes intellectual laziness while satisfying the addiction for increased productivity whether perceived or real.  I see some commonality between A.I and OOP.  Maybe A.I is just OOP++ 

[Joanna from IRC]

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.

I don't recall making that claim, because I certainly am not.

As far as reading books, it is about digesting knowledge, not rote memorization.

Oh well.

Your actions say otherwise. Your criticisms of how I concentrate upon only things relevant to what I’m working on comes across as arrogant even if that was not your intention.

There is nothing wrong with reading books. I enjoy reading good books and have read many books on many topics. It’s the attitude, “I’m better than you because I read more computer books” that I find off putting.

I also have encountered quite a few arrogant programmers who will never admit not knowing something and will instead try to bluff their way through the conversation by accusing the person they are talking to of “needing a personal tutor” or “being lazy”. Life is too short to waste on these types of people.

I’m only interested in talking to people who are not only knowledge but enjoy sharing information with people who might not be as advanced in skill as themselves. Yes I understand that the ability to teach is not possessed by everyone....

[TRon]

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

OMG.... the explainable hype in order to keep the hype buzzing.

Let me give it a try: A copy machine that decides by the role of the dice somewhat based upon input what it needs to predict in order to engage the user a long as possible so that profits can be maximized. All doing so without actually offering any practical solution, original thought and destined to bury itself in its own misery because that is how the current llvm's are currently implemented. It is the x-th reiteration of a topic that has no positive outcome whatsoever. It actually does not matter how much money/labour these companies throw at it.

Though I am not an expert on AI, llvm's and whatmore  buzz words that surrounds this hype, I do understand the explanations/lectures of the (original) designers. It will always be a role of the dice unless manipulated into doing something else.... and the latter is the part that everyone seems to forget and is also the most dangerous.

Someone mentioned that with each iteration these engines become better. My experience is exactly the opposite. And that is no wonder because of the input that these implementations take with them for the next release. That is why it is on their best interest to keep the buzz going so that as many users throw data into them as much as possible (which is exactly their doom). Also user input is highly rated, e.g. the more you consume feed the more you pay (this concept  is even better than a pyramid game),

The world has truly become bunkers but... on the other side young children these days aren't even capable of writing their own name properly on a piece of paper with a pen(cil). So, all is good and we can sleep well at night and let the AI do it for us. I do hope they push it hard and fast enough so that I am able to actually witness the doom of humanity altogether.

You and me have the experience to weigh the crap that these engines push out and be able to decide what to do with it but, young people growing up with them most certain don't and won't.

Oh almost forgot, did I already mention that I am not that fond of this technology ? 

[440bx]

One of the saddest side effects of A.I is that it seems to have somewhat (mostly?) replaced expert systems.

Unlike A.I, well implemented expert systems could not only provide an answer but fully justify the answer by exposing the decision tree that lead to it.  Also, a good expert system can learn _but_ its newly acquired knowledge must normally be reviewed and validated by human experts before it can become part of the internal decision tree.

Also, a well implemented expert system could say "I don't know" and show the undecidable points in the decision tree.

A.I does not seem to have any guard rails of any kind.  That is not a good thing.

[TRon]

A.I does not seem to have any guard rails of any kind.  That is not a good thing.

Which is probably the reason why experts systems seem to be fading. To develop, setup and maintain a serious expert system there is need to invest in knowledge and time.

On the surface current AI models seem capable of delivering something similar without such hassle. Everyone able to follow some simple instructions is able to setup a model and shapes it any which way it wants to (and in case reading is too difficult there are also GUI's with nice buttons that do click-clack and play an animation when you press them which are able to achieve the same).

Although perhaps similar on the surface nothing could be further apart regarding their inner workings though both can be manipulated by human intervention (though in case of an expert system at least it is possible to implement a mechanism to prevent that from happening or at least be able to point a/the finger).

If one has read f.e. the european legislation regarding (open)AI then the direction of that path is already known and in the end no-one is actually accountable for anything let alone that it is possible to reconstruct how something got to a certain point (which is actually the opposite of what an expert system tries to accomplish).

As someone in this forum once wrote: it is truly exciting to be alive in this day and age :sarcasm: 

[LV]

@TRon, I understand your concern. However, there is no reason to suspect all scientific groups working in this area of dishonesty or a willingness to profit at any cost.

@440bx, artificial intelligence is a broad concept that encompasses more than neural networks. Indeed, explainability and interpretability are the most important requirements for critical decision-support systems.

My friends believe that computers are evil. They are dealing with a son who is addicted to gaming, playing all night, and missing college classes.

[Joanna from IRC]

You must, otherwise you wouldn't be making unsupported, implicit and explicit, statements about OOP being better than pure procedural programming.

440bx I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’ve offered you the opportunity to tell everyone how you would build a house or make a cake without using objects . I was genuinely interested in how it would be done. Because you are the one claiming that it’s possible to do anything without using objects. 

The reason you should do it is to learn and to validate (or in this case falsify) your unfounded beliefs.

440bx it almost seems as though you are asking for help to transform your project into an oop program. I can’t even start to advise you on this without understanding what it does. Yes of course it would be a good learning experience to redo your program with oop but unfortunately it doesn’t take priority over my own project. I still would like to help if you’re serious. Are you able to tell me what the program does and what sorts of data it has?

A program to make a cake ???  when I make a cake I follow a recipe.  Likely even A.I can do that (which is a different thing than coming up with a recipe for a new, original cake.)

Well that’s presumptuous..A recipe is a cheat sheet for someone who already knows how to cook. What if the person making the cake is a child who doesn’t know how to read and has no knowledge of how to cook?

it seems that some people, you among them, have conveniently forgotten that very complex software has been written decades before OOP was even a hallucination in someone's mind.

I once was a non oop programmer just like you before I discovered objects. Even if oop programming techniques were created later, the world has always been full of objects.The  characteristics of objects and their relationships  to each other and their behavior predate computing.

A.I is having the impact it's having because it promotes intellectual laziness while satisfying the addiction for increased productivity whether perceived or real.

I agree with you on that

I see some commonality between A.I and OOP.  Maybe A.I is just OOP++

I doubt it. Oop doesn’t work well with copy paste programmers it’s too complicated.

[440bx]

440bx I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’ve offered you the opportunity to tell everyone how you would build a house or make a cake without using objects . I was genuinely interested in how it would be done. Because you are the one claiming that it’s possible to do anything without using objects. 

We're talking about programming here, not building houses (or baking cakes.)  However, as far as building houses, the methods vary dramatically depending on things such as climate and purpose among many others.

440bx it almost seems as though you are asking for help to transform your project into an oop program.

You're funny. I already wrote the program without your help and the last thing I want is an OOP version of it.  Write the OOP version and you'll know why.

Are you able to tell me what the program does and what sorts of data it has?

I can do better than that.  Compile and run the program, what it does should be patently obvious to a programmer.

What if the person making the cake is a child who doesn’t know how to read and has no knowledge of how to cook?

I don't let children operate stoves, particularly those who have not learned how to read yet.

The  characteristics of objects and their relationships  to each other and their behavior predate computing.

You've got quite a fallacy going in your argument.  Real objects don't inherit from other objects, e.g, a 3 bedroom house doesn't inherit from a studio in its way to becoming a 3 bedroom house.

I doubt it. Oop doesn’t work well with copy paste programmers it’s too complicated.

In OOP the copy/paste method "graduated" to inheritance which is one of the reasons OOP programs are much bigger than a reasonably well designed pure procedural program.

One of the similarities between A.I and OOP, is the extensive use of "prefabricated" blocks glued together.  Initial productivity is higher but the quality is _much_ lower.  Like a prefab house.

You criticize A.I as I do but, unlike me, you refuse to see that the reason(s) A.I is being used are much the same as the reason OOP has become popular.  It allows people often with limited knowledge to feel more productive, very often at the expense of the final product's quality.

[lainz]

Procedural programming like in C is possible to do all kind of programs. Everything so I agree with 440bx.

Objects are just sugar, but I must admit I use objects because I'm used to do that way, but that doesn't mean that Procedural programming can't do anything I do with objects.

Joanna, for example, with advanced records:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. type
2.   TUtensilType = (utSpoon, utFork)
3.  
4.   TIngredient = record
5.      name: string;
6.      quantity: double;
7.   end;
8.  
9.   TUtensil = record
10.      name: string;
11.      kind: TUtensilType;
12.      procedure use;
13.   end;

I can't find anymore your example... else I will add the methods to TUtensil.

[Joanna from IRC]

Procedural programming like in C is possible to do all kind of programs. Everything so I agree with 440bx.

Objects are just sugar, but I must admit I use objects because I'm used to do that way, but that doesn't mean that Procedural programming can't do anything I do with objects.

Joanna, for example, with advanced records:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. type
2.   TUtensilType = (utSpoon, utFork)
3.  
4.   TIngredient = record
5.      name: string;
6.      quantity: double;
7.   end;
8.  
9.   TUtensil = record
10.      name: string;
11.      kind: TUtensilType;
12.      procedure use;
13.   end;

I can't find anymore your example... else I will add the methods to TUtensil.

lainz your example is ok for simple things but for an entire kitchen utensil could be anything from a corkscrew to a chopstick it’s all about thinking what things have in common.

440bx

However, as far as building houses, the methods vary dramatically depending on things such as climate and purpose among many others.

that’s right and the available materials can vary also and How to construct with different materials

I don't let children operate stoves, particularly those who have not learned how to read yet.

computers are far less intelligent than a child who can’t read, so create a robust methodology that will keep the child safe without fail.

You've got quite a fallacy going in your argument.  Real objects don't inherit from other objects, e.g, a 3 bedroom house doesn't inherit from a studio in its way to becoming a 3 bedroom house.

As I’ve told you before, I’m not responsible for every piece of bad oop code ever written. A studio is a house which has zero bedrooms so far as I know.

In OOP the copy/paste method "graduated" to inheritance which is one of the reasons OOP programs are much bigger than a reasonably well designed pure procedural program.

Well written programs that have error checking are also bigger than ones that don’t. copy paste makes duplicate code all over the place. Oop should consolidate the code in just one place.

One of the similarities between A.I and OOP, is the extensive use of "prefabricated" blocks glued together.  Initial productivity is higher but the quality is _much_ lower.  Like a prefab house.

sometimes standard interchangeable parts are good.  Unless you’re prepared to make everything yourself.     
The quality of things decreasing the easier it becomes to make them is rather strange phenomenon. Modern technology has made it possible for every house to be a work of art with cad machines able to carve wood and stone. Yet modern houses couldn’t be uglier and have prefabricated plastic parts that fall apart.

You criticize A.I as I do but, unlike me, you refuse to see that the reason(s) A.I is being used are much the same as the reason OOP has become popular.  It allows people often with limited knowledge to feel more productive, very often at the expense of the final product's quality.

You’re blaming the technology for the lack of quality. I think it’s human nature to not care about strangers who use things they make for a living. Just do as little as possible for as much money as you can get. It’s not a technological problem it’s a sociological problem.

I can do better than that.  Compile and run the program, what it does should be patently obvious to a programmer.

if you’re so proud of your project why are you so reluctant to talk about it?

[440bx]

computers are far less intelligent than a child who can’t read, so create a robust methodology that will keep the child safe without fail.

A completely absurd request.  It is quite likely not possible to keep a child safe without fail without imposing a set of restrictions on the child that would very negatively affect the child's quality of life.

Your argument is getting so absurd that it is starting to sound like something generated by a third rate A.I program.

A studio is a house which has zero bedrooms so far as I know.

You're an OOP programmer, inherit one.  Luke/Joanna... use the OOP.

Anyway, there is no extricating you from the cult of OOP.  That's no surprise.

if you’re so proud of your project why are you so reluctant to talk about it?

Everything that needs to be said about it is found at the link I posted previously, I suggest you read it.  If you tried writing that program using OOP. You'd learn a lot about OOP but the last thing you want is to learn the cost of OOP, just like some programmers who use A.I don't want to consider whose rights may have been infringed to produce the code they got. 

[lainz]

Procedural programming like in C is possible to do all kind of programs. Everything so I agree with 440bx.

Objects are just sugar, but I must admit I use objects because I'm used to do that way, but that doesn't mean that Procedural programming can't do anything I do with objects.

Joanna, for example, with advanced records:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. type
2.   TUtensilType = (utSpoon, utFork)
3.  
4.   TIngredient = record
5.      name: string;
6.      quantity: double;
7.   end;
8.  
9.   TUtensil = record
10.      name: string;
11.      kind: TUtensilType;
12.      procedure use;
13.   end;

I can't find anymore your example... else I will add the methods to TUtensil.

lainz your example is ok for simple things but for an entire kitchen utensil could be anything from a corkscrew to a chopstick it’s all about thinking what things have in common.

Post your code again, I can't find it anywhere...

[Joanna from IRC]

Lainz it wasn’t real code I made it up to try to engage 440bx to show me how to code without using oop. He apparently can’t but prefers to rant at me about a hypothetical things rather than think of solutions.

The code had enum of types of materials .
Base class utensil with material and dimensions And abstract use scoop , poke stir methodS
The  spoon descended from base class with volume property added.
And stir and scoop overridden functions.
A program for making a cake is actually quite complicated.

[lainz]

Joanna is easy to compare Procedural with OOP.

Basically the main difference is where the data and the methods are. In OOP all are together, in Procedural are separated.

That's all, no more differences.

For that you can create the same code with both.

Operating systems are made with C and procedural, if an entire operating system is made with that, imagine...