You’re being sarcastic but surely you know that really is the presumed eventuality for a lot of people who have fallen for the hype. “AI will become smarter than humans and so will be able to create better AI.” So if you believe that, we’re currently still bootstrapping the AI, but it will eventually be able to create the next iteration of AI without needing us.
I don’t believe that of course.
Now, hold on a minute. I get what you’re doing and I like it, but I don’t think those first 2 examples work.
Visual programming is programming. Were they really ever touted as not requiring programmers? I would think it’s just marketed as more intuitive and easier to use for certain applications, but users are still referred to as programmers. Let me know if I’m wrong. Side note: my first programming language was LabVIEW, a visual programming language, which I used in high school to program our robot for FRC. It is, for all intents and purposes, a fully-fledged programming language and requires a programmer to create code for it.
MDA, honestly I don’t know much about it, but from the description in the image it sounds like it still requires someone to “write a universal model”… did they try to claim that that someone would not be a programmer?
I wanted to downvote you for failing to pick up on the sarcasm, but then you went and did all that math that I was too lazy to do and I ended up upvoting you instead. Damn you!
Either this is faked for the meme or something is very very wrong.
YourJokeButWorse
Yeah…
I wouldn’t say this is “what GitHub has become” per se, only a handful of unlucky projects need to deal with PR/issue spam. What @Zangoose@lemmy.world said is right, the Linux PR spam is largely inconsequential because GitHub PRs (or issues) were never accepted in the first place.
But then there Express.js, which receives loads of useless PRs because some terrible YouTube tutorials show kids how to make baby’s first GitHub pull request: https://github.com/expressjs/express/pulls?page=1&q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed+Readme.md So in a way this is what GitHub has become. This and the inescapable AI crap.
No.
A joke like this is funny once. The screenshot in the OP can be reshared endlessly (whether it’s real or not), and anyone trying to make another iteration of this joke is just spamming the project with useless noise. It makes work for maintainers.
Fortunately it seems like this hasn’t been a problem in this particular repository, unlike the Linux repository which received endless spam before GH gave them the tools to block it. But if this becomes a trend, Arch might need to deal with dozens of joke issues per week, and there’s just nothing funny about that.
Edit: just confirmed that the OP screenshot is fake, which is good. (Issue #4269 doesn’t exist yet and the number itself is two memes.)
Thanks.
What I still didn’t figure out about the comment I replied to is:
… what
The last one, Kimi K2, has been consistently good as long as I’ve been looking at it. That’s pretty impressive.
The rest are hilarious!
Where’s the original post?
That’s interesting. I’ll have to read up on that. You’re right, I am thinking about boolean algebra.
In the mean time though, I’ll note that Boolean algebra on Wikipedia also refers to this operation, so I’m not alone:
Material conditional
The first operation, x → y, or Cxy, is called material implication. If x is true, then the result of expression x → y is taken to be that of y (e.g. if x is true and y is false, then x → y is also false). But if x is false, then the value of y can be ignored; however, the operation must return some Boolean value and there are only two choices. So by definition, x → y is true when x is false (relevance logic rejects this definition, by viewing an implication with a false premise as something other than either true or false).
It also uses the second interpretation that I mentioned in my earlier comment (4 above this one), with true being default, rather than the one we’ve been discussing.
The comment you replied to is my response to this. It’s the only boolean operation that works this way. All the others are straightforward.
Yeah, that kinda works but I don’t like it. See my reply to the other comment.
Yup, that’s my interpretation too. It just doesn’t sit well with all the other operators.
All the others are phrased as direct questions about the values of A and B:
You see the issue?
Edit: looking online, some people see it as: “If A is true, take the value of B.” A implies that you should take the value of B. But if A is false, you shouldn’t take the value of B, instead you should use the default value which is inexplicably defined to be true for this operation.
This is slightly more satisfying but I still don’t like it. The implication (ha) that true is the default value for a boolean doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t even feel comfortable with a boolean having a default value, let alone it being true instead of false which would be more natural.
Edit 2: fixed a brain fart for A NAND B
I never got why “implies” is called that. How does the phrase “A implies B” relate to the output’s truth table?
I have my own “head canon” to remember it but I’ll share it later, want to hear someone else’s first.
Even your title isn’t the true beginning. Before the terminal, there was just a printer. Teletype, was it?
Tell that to people 150 years ago.