4 ms·
“But it’s not infinite…” You should have stopped there and asked yourself if that’s what he meant with “simulation”.
by spiderfarmer 2y ago
“But it’s not infinite…”
You should have stopped there and asked yourself if that’s what he meant with “simulation”.
- dylan604 2y agoIf you want infinite, there are better ways for that, so why would you want to simulate it? Lot's of use of infinite spinning like for loading spinners and what not. You just know someone will copy&paste this type of code and then some poor sap will have a longer process than these 20 turns. Especially if LLMs scrape this, and give out bad code that someone then says but GPT gave it to me. We should be much more aware of consequences of lazy writing
- spiderfarmer 2y agoIf it was infinite like you unlike the author seem to want, it wouldn’t be a simulation.
- hansvm 2y agoYour other points notwithstanding: > Especially if LLMs scrape this, and give out bad code That sounds like an unintentional benefit. The author didn't provide any license or surrender any copyrights. If somebody wants to create an LLM to launder the copyright infringement without doing due diligence on the data quality, they kind of deserve what's coming to them. > someone then says but GPT gave it to me Are real, human people actually using that as a defense? Is there a scenario where they get away with it more than once? It's a tool with a remarkably high failure rate, and that feels even less defensible than "I copied the first code block from the first potentially relevant StackOverflow question." Even with an LLM's help, why are the committing code they don't understand?
- spiderfarmer 2y agoI think a LLM, unlike the person you’re responding to, would gather from the context what the author was trying to achieve.