May I present to you:

The Marriam-Webster Dictionary

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial

Definition #3b

I don’t think the term AI has been used in a vague way, it’s that there’s a huge disconnect between how the technical fields use it vs general populace and marketing groups heavily abuse that disconnect.

Artificial has two meanings/use cases. One is to indicate something is fake (video game NPC, chess bots, vegan cheese). The end product looks close enough to the real thing that for its intended use case it works well enough. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, treat it like a duck even though we all know it’s a bunny with a costume on. LLMs on a technical level fit this definition.

The other definition is man made. Artificial diamonds are a great example of this, they’re still diamonds at the end of the day, they have all the same chemical makeups, same chemical and physical properties. The only difference is they came from a laboratory made by adult workers vs child slave labor.

My pet theory is science fiction got the general populace to think of artificial intelligence to be using the “man-made” definition instead of the “fake” definition that these companies are using. In the past the subtle nuance never caused a problem so we all just kinda ignored it

I think a better definition would be “achieve something in an unintended or uncommon way”. Fits the bill on what generally passes in the tech community as a “hack” while also covering some normal life stuff.

Getting a cheaper flight booked by using a IP address assigned to a different geographical location? Sure I’d call that a life hack. Getting a cheaper flight by booking a late night, early morning flight? No, those are deliberately cheaper

Also re: your other comment about not making a reply at all, sometimes for people like us it’s just better to not get into internet fights over semantics (no matter how much fun they can be)

That’s kind of the point though, isn’t it?

If I were to post with “Extend the plank!” there’s a near zero chance that even fans of the movie, or even the franchise, I’m thinking of will get the movie right. If I instead say “Who am I to argue with the Captain of the Enterprise” a normie might guess Star Trek, a true nerd and fan of the franchise will peg that instantly as from Star Trek Generations

Edit: That said, there are several lines in this thread that aren’t necessarily only recognizable to fans or people familiar with the movie, but instead just pop culture references.

From a technology standpoint, nothing is stopping them. From a business standpoint: hubris.

To put time and effort into creating traditional logic based algorithms to compensate for this generic math model would be to admit what mathematicians and scientists have known for centuries. That models are good at finding patterns but they do not explain why a relationship exists (if it exists at all). The technology is fundamentally flawed for the use cases that OpenAI is trying to claim it can be used in, and programming around it would be to acknowledge that.

You don’t. In C everything gets referenced by a symbol during the link stage of compilation. Libraries ultimately get treated like your source code during compilation and all items land in a symbol table. Two items with the same name result in a link failure and compilation aborts. So a library and a program with main is no bueno.

When Linux loads an executable they basically look at the program’s symbol table and search for “main” then start executing at that point

Windows behaves mostly the same way, as does MacOS. Most RTOS’s have their own special way of doing things, bare metal you’re at the mercy of your CPU vendor. The C standard specifies that “main” is the special symbol we all just happen to use

It’s a still frame from Star Trek The Next Generation, episode The Game

The plot is a wearable device that is an AR “glasses” game that as you play the game it “makes you feel good” gets used to take over the Enterprise so terrorists can hijack it.

At the time I imagine it was intended to be part of anti-drug campaigns with the AR and companies curating what you see to distract from reality angle/sentiment being more relevant today

I hadn’t thought of that before, and I can think of several characters who’ve said things I doubt the writers would want attributed to them. I just want to see quotes from fiction being clearly labeled as such, and not using the grandiose of a character’s title to add weight to the quote.

For example when I see people quote Admiral William Adama on how when the military becomes the police, the people become the enemy of the state. That was Ron Moore writing a character for a show set in a post apocalyptic universe where the only survivors are hanging out on military ships, not a real world seasoned officer’s opinion. Is it an interesting point worth discussing? Sure, but I’m not putting it in the same category of 5-Star General Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about the military industrial complex

Props to you for actually attributing the quote to the writer and not the character. It’s a pet peeve of mine when people take profound sounding quotes and attribute it to a fictional character that never existed, never had real thoughts or opinions of their own

Closing bracket indented with current level?

Lol yup, got the idea from a Technology Connections video on how one of the common humidifier designs are literally just large swamp coolers

I’ve taken to using an old cake pan, a desk fan, and a towel. Fill up the pan with water, stick one end of the towel in the water, drape and clip the other end to the fan and let it sit running for a few days. Before the towel gets gross, toss it in the laundry when it’s dry and grab another towel

It works so well I’m completely confused as to how/why there isn’t a commercialized product like that, it completely solves the cleaning/highschool biology experiments problem

Man I was so hyped for Zelda HD back in the day off of that TP art style demo. The hype cycle around BotW was wild

It’s so incredibly annoying when people use smaller order of magnitude descriptors simply so they can then write more zeros. A good chunk of the time too it feels like it’s done to distract from a different point or to exaggerate without technically lying.

Doesn’t help that technical jargon is only best used when communicating with someone in that field or understands it. Big number + alphabet soup always seems scary 😞

I’m curious as to what the worst one is. GIMP is pretty bad, KiCAD has pronunciation problems, nothing else is coming to mind

There’s a few threads over on Reddit and the LTT forum about how Linus has apparently handled this all wrong, they should have made a video years ago, Linus being dismissive of if on WAN show is him being detached from reality, you know, the usual bullshit

Edit: ITT https://lemmy.world/comment/14273487

In fairness to me (and maybe you) Sync didn’t load the comment initially so only after I kept reading I found it

Realistically no. The support needed to manage the devices we all use is just insane, and I think a lot of people take for granted how the x86 platform has evolved over the last few decades. The ARM landscape does not have the standards set that x86 does and that will always hold it back. Qualcomm learned long ago that it’s within their best interest to be constantly changing the SoCs and never really documenting/supporting them very well because it forces all of the downstream vendors to do constant refreshes. Toss in the development hellscape my fellow programmers created ourselves and we get the vicious cycle we’re in today where Google saying they’ll support a device for longer than a few years was the headline sales pitch

-typed on a Pixel 8 which was purchased due to that sales pitch

Freshly picked Tingles Rosy Rupeeland is a masterpiece and the most important game in the series, I will not hear otherwise

The real metric is dollars per second of destroyed hardware ;)

I once watched an engineer blow up a $200k prototype with a terminal alias.

Heh, I guess this shows my corporate software dev experience. Whenever I’ve taught git workflows it was always paired with a work ticketing system where any changes you were making were ideally all one single set of changes. If you need a feature or bug fix someone else was doing that was being done on another branch which you could pull into your code early and for tracking purposes we always made sure the other person merged into main first. The only time I’ve seen per line manipulation with git was when someone made a ton of changes in a file and wanted to revert a handful of lines.

Everything else you mentioned I’ve had a web git host like gitlab or bitbucket for, but I kinda put that more into peer review workflow than git itself