MotoAsh

That's why it's even more important to realize the machine has no intent. Its actions are solely the result of its creator's actions in creating it.

I point out anthropomorphization so much because not only will it innoculate people against the advertising for it that WILL anthroporphize it, but when it fucks up, the appropriate people will be punished.

This isn't a thinking machine going postal. It's a dangerous product being pushed out with little regard for consequences.

Selling dangerous products used to mean something before billionaires bought the government...

It DOES matter. Directly. Fully.

If people think that the unthinking "AI" actually has autonomy, they will be less likely to hold the people responsible to account.

Why do you not understand that? It is a critical fact of the matter that modern day "AI" does not think nor want, because then responsibility of its actions should then rightfully fall on to who set up the Rube Goldberg machine with machetes on it.

This is not a machine going postal. It's a dangerous product they've been allowed to sell.

We're trying to impress on you the importance of culpability. If it thinks for itself, then it becomes a defective product. If it doesn't, it's a dangerous product.

It's the difference between someone selling a car that happens to break down easily, and one where the brake lines randomly fall off because they fucked up the design and didn't want to spend the money to do it right... It's the difference between accidents and neglegence. This "AI" shit? Pure greed-fed neglegence.

The wording in the article is on purpose. They want you to think it doesn't matter while they're anthropomorphizing it, FFS. They want you to blame the bot, not the guy who made the obviously dangerous bot and then sold it to the world for billions.

Nowhere at all anywhere did I ever say AI is totally not a problem.

Maybe you should be less worried about reading between the lines and more worried about assuming what people didn't say?

The bot didn't want anything. It didn't try to murder anyone. At all. What happened was, rich fucks with unchecked power are allowed to release dangerous, unethical products based on nothing but hype and vapid promises.

The only thing technology related is the involvment of AI, and it's all BS and stupid. The AI DOES NOT WANT. The AI is not the one in control.

Without intent from the machine, this is EXACTLY THE SAME situation as every other time greedy capitalists pushed unsafe products.

Is the 9000000th time capitalists directly harmed society and those in it the time when humanity FINALLY learns to not let horrible shitheads run free over the world based on lies of promises!? Stay tuned to find out!!

Read the comic again. One day you'll understand that you're defending the butt of the joke. You're the, "leave Britney alone" person of this post.

Even if you were correct (and you're not), you'd still be wrong.

Yea, hence my last sentence. The solution isn't to excuse them but to realize the full scope of the problem, and how it is very engrained in society. A great step would be to stop allowing willfully inept people any power in the first place.

Oh, perceived value... I guess that would be the outward side of ego for individuals like celebs. lol Only so many careers where those two can go hand in hand. (although under very much NOT meritocratic capitalism, ego goes a lot further than it should...)

Yea he sounds like he wants to be contrarian on TDD if he's thinking that equals no design. lol

IMO, thinks like factory constructors are just typical over-engineering things. I've yet to meet a programmer (that actually became one as a career) that learns a new pattern and doesn't implement it somewhere it doesn't need to be. (hell, I'd say that's the entirety of the existence of blockchain and NFTs... outside of the money-grubbers/launderers, of course)

Why do you think TDD is so bad in Java and what makes it so easy in Ruby? My experience is mostly from Java, and there, TDD seems easy enough for a strongly typed language? At least when leveraging modern libraries/frameworks and coding practices so the pieces are actually accessible. I'm sure doing TDD with raw Java would suck ass for the patterns that don't jive with IOC-adjacent design. lol

It sounds more like you straight up disagree with Ousterhout?

I agree with you, though. Inaccurate comments are tentamount to bad documentation, and nobody says bad documentation is remotely good for something...

In fact, that's sometimes the biggest difference between different libraries/frameworks, and the one with better documentation almost always wins.

IME, single-line comments that deserve to stay are ones warning about unobvious context, like why a certain function call has funky parameter prep, or why a var is being treated differently, or even just a healthy reminder that 'this' math statement does actually need all those type casts.

Of course, if I find myself simply stating only what the code is doing, I'll look for things to restructure/rename (because why the F did I feel the need to write a comment if it's straight forward?), but they're useful far more often than certain types ("code should be self-documenting!") like to admit. Hell, some code ends up looking funky solely because it's using a weird language feature or working around a language-specific issue and those usually-obvious things still sometimes deserve comments!

Just like how simple, elegant psudo-code can explode in to a mess when dealing with the real-world edge cases, sometimes simple code does deserve an explanation. Give the dev enough context to connect the simple conceptual idea to the complex state during the code's execution.

Only time I remove such comments is when they're referring to something that is already well documented somewhere. Like if it's a method call with some funky parameter requirements, but they're already thoroughly explained in the method's own comments/docs, then that might get removed. Still though, if it's funky enough that a coworker might have similar refactoring thoughts should they come through on their own, I might leave/add a comment about why the crappy statement(s) remain as they are (with reference to any docs) so the coworker doesn't have to literally re-search why the code wasn't refactored last time through. Promise it's not 'cause I'm lazy!!

Wait, a person looking for fame and fortune via glorifying themselves turned out to be a bad person?!

... Holy shit celebrity culture has cooked peoples' brains... cannot even finish my mock surprise.

As much as the other guy is a trolling shithead, that logic you're using is about as stupid as the people who claim a pirated copy is literally a lost sale...

Not only do movies and media in general have zero requirements for massive paychecks, there are many great shows/movies with tiny budgets where the people involved very much did NOT make The Rock sized wages. So you're plain wrong even on a fundamental level, let alone what you meant by using it as a response...

It doesn't make OP right, it just makes that a very, very dumb comment, let alone comeback.

Hollywood running its own rewards shows has always been the Obama putting a medal on Obama meme...

In fact, rewards ceremonies for most things are nothing but BS. Very, very few are actual rewards that seriously considered all applicable content, and even fewer serve a purpose beyond ego inflation.