4 ms·
When op used the word “understanding”, I interpreted it as some program that can provide code snippets, skeletons, or whatever abstraction in some contextual wa
by tracer4201 7y ago
When op used the word “understanding”, I interpreted it as some program that can provide code snippets, skeletons, or whatever abstraction in some contextual way so it’s not just a dumb table lookup.
You’re post is unnecessarily pessimistic and generally bad faith.
And maybe ops vision can’t be realized today, but if someone is thinking beyond the current state of the art, it’s short sighted and incredibly ignorant to dismiss them as time wasting fantasies.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y agoAssuming the OP expects to gain something from this conversation, the most benefit that can be gained is from telling them why their idea makes no sense. That is what "good faith" means and that is what I did. Your comment, on the other hand, seems to be confusing good faith with indulgence. Just saying "yes" to people and being nice to them does them no favours.
- tracer4201 7y agoA discussion that makes us think about the boundaries of what is or isn’t possible today is indulgence? You failed spectacularly by your own definition of a good faith discussion by dismissing ops post as “fantasy”. You give no explanation of why it is unachievable today or why it would continue to be impossible in the future. My previous team had a member who outright dismissed ideas and criticized things for the sake of sounding intelligent without proposing solutions to further the discussion or solve the problem. We let him go. Good luck.
- TBF-RnD 7y agoThank you :D Couldn't have written it better myself. Maybe there is an minimal test case that could demonstrate deeper understanding. Sort of a fizz-buzz for AI, to separate the parrots from the thinkers so to speak. Food for thought. Meanwhile I am to busy on other grandiose plans to give it to much attention ATM.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]