Even with the /s I think you misunderstand. If you just want to configure your router, then AI is neat. If you want to learn and understand what's going on in the router as you set it up, then being given the answers basically teaches you nothing.
It's the same reason why we don't give students the answers to things, we teach them to find the answers.
Why would most people want to learn how a router works? It's the end goal that the vast majority of users want - i don't want to learn about routing tables, I just want to expose a port for plex, etc. Also, I could have AI craft a fascinating and engaging way of teaching router setup that actually helps me learn instead of wasting time searching through random forums form google results
> Also, I could have AI craft a fascinating and engaging way of teaching router setup that actually helps me learn instead of wasting time searching through random forums form google results
And somewhere between ten and seventy percent of what it teaches you will be anywhere from subtly wrong in minor ways to utterly flaming bullshit, and unless you go through the boring, slow, old-fashioned learning methods, you'll have no way to know.
yes but last year it was between 20 and 80 percent, point being talk to me in 10 years and all errors around router behaviour will be completely missing from AI teaching tools
I know the feeling, I was triggered when I wrote it. Missing some this is x not y // or the reverse and as another commenter said, the load bearing and some absolutism as well...
Part of NASA's remit is public communications. They have inspired generations and generations of engineers, scientists, technicians, and explorers. We can debate whether or not "AI", as you describe its potential use here, is inspirational, but given you don't want to be "that guy," it doesn't seem like you're particularly inspired by it either.
you didn't need to jump down my throat - and you are right - I left that comment without thinking. I was just saying that some mysterious old archaic programming paradigms can be demystified with the help of AI, especially the max power ones
I dislike AI but I think it's unfair that you're being downvoted for this.
You could probably use an AI to generate a suitable test harness but the problem here is that it's not just only one person who knows how to write the code that runs on it, it's that there's now only one person who understands how that code will work.
You're familiar with what bugs are, right?
I'm going to send you down a bit of a rabbit hole here - https://www.bigmessowires.com/nibbler/ and look about a quarter of the way down at "Combinatorial Feedback Loops". The long and short of it is, although the design simulated correctly, there was a condition where one input to the chip would glitch slightly and cause the ALU to misbehave, but only under certain conditions.
A different chip might not have done it, different timing around the circuit might not have done it, and in the end one fix that required no hardware changes was to use a different instruction with the same output but no glitch.
I'm prepared to bet that Voyager's computers are absolutely chock full of nonsense like that, and there's a lot of "correct per the spec" code you could write that could send it off into la-la land because it doesn't quite work right on the real hardware.
And that specifically is where you need a human to say "yeah but it needs to be written with *these* specific opcodes because *those* specific opcodes will...", and I'm not sure that AI is ready to do that yet.
The root of the problem is the one I run into if I wanted to use AI to write code - AI is a big copy-and-paste machine and does not really understand all the tiny details that we hold in our brains.
Without the implicit knowledge that goes around things like "well you can't do that because..." you're going to get into a mess.
im familiar with bugs i am an a qa engineer i am just saying, like fortran, the mysteries of old programs and old programming paradigms can be demystified with AI
Use the Voyager Communication Encoding manual, which is a 300 page, spiral bound, thick volume in an archival cabinet somewhere gathering dust in a lower floor at NASA
HOWEVER you'll also need the General Dynamics D-30 Line Encoding for Deep Space Comms manual as well, which is in another NASA building, somewhere. Might be in a lab hidden under a Mars Sojourner Manual who nobody can find neither
In most cases that would indicate an organizational failure. However, if something is trillions of miles away, and wrong commands could break communication etc, I'd probably just stick with the most experienced person as well.
Yeah, I'm scheduled for surgery, so my insurance carrier says it's outrageous for the surgeon to come into the O.R. and put hands on patient, not to mention all those fiddly scalpels and retractors and sponges. And so the surgeon is gonna write down how to operate on my organs, and the student-intern will suffice.
I think it's incredibly naive to assume there's not documentation. Maybe look into NASA and the Voyager 2 program a bit.
Experts aren't made from reading a data sheet or process doc. Competence in performing a critical task comes from actually doing the task in practice and for real.
I've found I don't like marking up books, because what was highly insightful and revelatory on the first read, seems obvious and boring on the second read
There are finders and seekers. I’m always impressed with people who ardently believe they know the truth, they can act without doubt, an interesting skill.
I'm also impressed, but not in a good way. I consider certainty to be the biggest tell of falsehood, and I wish to deny the vote to people with certainty.
Certainty of opinion on a complex topic reveals a belief that organic brains can, in practice, judge the correctness of their own reasoning - a conceit that borders on the psychotic, and at minimum a complete failure of self-awareness. These people don't need agency, they need thorazine.
yea it's like when someone is a really good liar - some skills you shouldn't want to have. Being insanely sure of the history of the universe when you have incredibly scant information, is surely not a good thing, unless you need to use it to survive through an illogical and chaotic world
I'm with you. It's not for me but it's absolutely fascinating. There's something nice about letting go and just knowing that it's part of someone's plan. Again, not for me but I understand that appeal.
the people I know who hate AI have a bizarre and unrelatable love for the pure math aspect of software engineering - the elegant software architecture, the efficient programming languages. the people who only care about getting stuff done are loving AI but people who spent their life learning how to properly craft high quality software are weeping - as they should be - now they know how kasparov felt
There is room in this world for Mcdonalds and Michelin Chefs.
I would also take your comment with a grain of salt. If the people you are talking about are javascript developers or people who do leetcode in interviews but never write that kind of code on the job, they are probably delusional. Ive seen many people call it a “craft” and what they produce is nothing of the sort.
If you really are good, you’ll still be in demand where it matters.
that is so true in fact I have only heard a few people say that actually, most say it more in theory than practice. Because in practice I have always been asked to solve pretty simple and boring problems far removed from the Dijkstra algorithms i did in college. i never used a graph data structure in my entire life lol
this reminds me of the old IBM tabulation machines that were sold in 2 different models at different prices, the cheaper one just had a metal tab inserted to limit the processing speed - you could remove the tab to unlock full speed
yes I have hypothesized this as well - if you ask rudely on StackOverflow you will get bad or even misleading answers - but if you ask nicely you will more likely be given good information.
It could stand to reason that if you are nice to the AI, you will get a response that is trained on all of the nice responses and be higher quality.
but is providing access to internet for billions of people worth not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night? I say yes, but only just barely
What percentage of humans are urban dwelling and don’t even see the stars at night? Related there aren’t many places on earth where you can still see the Milky Way. In that way a similar trade off has been made with no forethought whatsoever. Should this time be different? I think so.
Rather than deciding for them from your bubble of privilege in your fiber-connected utopia, you could just ask these poorer countries if it is worth trading global full, high-speed internet access for "not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night".
Or just watch what they do when presented with the choice.
That you would think to ask this shows how out of touch you are.
The vast majority of people wouldn't think twice if that was the trade-off to get connected.
We should be talking instead of governmental oversight, and whether it makes sense to restrict/regulate satellite constellations for science or culture activities.
I think there should be regulation, but clearly the people and the market wants this, so it's going to happen.
And there is regulation. SpaceX works with astronomers and their satellites are coated to reduce glare and use of sun visors for example.
My Hyundai likes to auto slam on the brakes when cars in front of me turn off the road, even when I definitely won't hit them. It's almost caused collisions with cars behind me.
if it makes you feel better you are supporting American automakers and American workers when you buy tesla - has helped a lot of people swallow the musk pill when buying one
