The search function of the Walmart site was broken for a year or two on mobile but it seems it’s been fixed. A few webpages I needed for school explicitly weren’t supported in non-chromium browers.

Basically how I do rubber duckie debugging

See? It should work because I initialize it as this and iterate doing this and this which gives me a data structure like this and … wait … oh hell that clearly doesn’t produce the data structure I want. 🤦

We tend to see what we want to see, not what actually is.

Oh dang, I use that extension too and I didn’t know it was abandoned. Let me know if you find a good replacement

I have fruit ninja on my ti-83. You swipe across the buttons to slice. It’s surprisingly not as awful as you’d expect

Lol I’m pretty sure I have those headphones

Same, Spotify and steam are too convenient for me. Everything else though…

Lol you had to go and be the demon on his shoulder

bAnANas

Yup, and pretend that your credit card is your debit card. I never pay for anything with my credit card unless I know that I can clear the balance immediately after if I had to.

I’ve heard that that’s similar to why Adobe creative cloud was so easy to pirate for years (maybe it still is, idk, I switched to affinity forever ago). Adobe is the industry standard because everyone uses it -> person wants to learn photo/video editing, digital illustration, etc, but can’t afford it -> pirate Adobe instead of trying cheaper/free alternatives, because it’s the industry standard -> person with Adobe skills gets hired by business that pays for Adobe legitimately because that’s what most people know -> Adobe is the industry because everyone uses it, and the cycle goes on…

Connect for Android does

Magically no, but sometimes a clean slate is easier than a refactor. I’m speaking generally though, I’ve never looked at Lemmy’s code, and I’m not even who you originally replied to.

lemm.ee doesn’t block it, so it’s not a problem with your instance. You don’t have to ask how I know

I love the intro. They borrowed it from Primus

You’re right, it’s very much context dependent, and I appreciate your incite on how this clash between psychology and computer science muddies the terms. As a CS guy myself who’s just dipping my toes into NN’s, I lean toward the psychology definition, where intelligence is measured by behavior.

In an artificial neural network, the algorithms that wrangle data and build a model aren’t really what makes the decisions, they just build out the “body” (model, generator functions) and “environment” (data format), so to speak. If anything that code is more comparable to DNA than any state of mind. Training on data is where the knowledge comes from, and by making connections the model can “reason” a good answer with the correlations it found. Those processes are vague enough that I don’t feel comfortable calling them algorithms, though. It’s pretty divorced from cold, hard code.

AI knows nothing and are just dumb correlation engines

Here’s a thought exercise, how do you “know”? How do you know your pet? LLMs like gpt can “know” about a dog in terms of words, because that’s what they “sense”, that’s how they interact with their “environment”. They understand words and how they relate to other words, basically words are their entire environment.

Now, can you describe how you know your dog without your senses, or anything derived from your senses? Remember, chemical receptors are “senses” too.

I remember reading about this awhile back but I don’t have the link on me: Did you know that people who were born blind but have their vision repaired years later don’t immediately know what “pointy” looks like? They never formed that correlation between the feeling of pointy and the visual of pointy the way that they could with the feeling and the word.

My point is, we’re correlation machines too

This is what it comes down to. Until we agree on a testable definition of “intelligence” (or sentience, sapience, consciousness or just about any descriptor of human thought), it’s not really science. Even in nature, what we might consider intelligence manifests in different organisms in different ways.

We could assume that when people say intelligence they mean human-like intelligence. That might be narrow enough to test, but you’d probably still end up failing some humans and passing some trained models

Same

I think my last sentence includes your “missing option”, actually. Take streaming for example, I’m not paying for 6 different streaming services. I can’t, I won’t, and I’m not going to juggle them every couple months either. So I pirate. Even if for some reason I couldn’t pirate their stuff, I just wouldn’t watch it. Either way, they don’t get my money.