Even with the /s I think you misunderstand. If you just want to configure your router, then AI is neat. If you want to learn and understand what's going on in the router as you set it up, then being given the answers basically teaches you nothing.
It's the same reason why we don't give students the answers to things, we teach them to find the answers.
Why would most people want to learn how a router works? It's the end goal that the vast majority of users want - i don't want to learn about routing tables, I just want to expose a port for plex, etc. Also, I could have AI craft a fascinating and engaging way of teaching router setup that actually helps me learn instead of wasting time searching through random forums form google results
> Also, I could have AI craft a fascinating and engaging way of teaching router setup that actually helps me learn instead of wasting time searching through random forums form google results
And somewhere between ten and seventy percent of what it teaches you will be anywhere from subtly wrong in minor ways to utterly flaming bullshit, and unless you go through the boring, slow, old-fashioned learning methods, you'll have no way to know.
yes but last year it was between 20 and 80 percent, point being talk to me in 10 years and all errors around router behaviour will be completely missing from AI teaching tools
I know the feeling, I was triggered when I wrote it. Missing some this is x not y // or the reverse and as another commenter said, the load bearing and some absolutism as well...
Part of NASA's remit is public communications. They have inspired generations and generations of engineers, scientists, technicians, and explorers. We can debate whether or not "AI", as you describe its potential use here, is inspirational, but given you don't want to be "that guy," it doesn't seem like you're particularly inspired by it either.
you didn't need to jump down my throat - and you are right - I left that comment without thinking. I was just saying that some mysterious old archaic programming paradigms can be demystified with the help of AI, especially the max power ones
I dislike AI but I think it's unfair that you're being downvoted for this.
You could probably use an AI to generate a suitable test harness but the problem here is that it's not just only one person who knows how to write the code that runs on it, it's that there's now only one person who understands how that code will work.
You're familiar with what bugs are, right?
I'm going to send you down a bit of a rabbit hole here - https://www.bigmessowires.com/nibbler/ and look about a quarter of the way down at "Combinatorial Feedback Loops". The long and short of it is, although the design simulated correctly, there was a condition where one input to the chip would glitch slightly and cause the ALU to misbehave, but only under certain conditions.
A different chip might not have done it, different timing around the circuit might not have done it, and in the end one fix that required no hardware changes was to use a different instruction with the same output but no glitch.
I'm prepared to bet that Voyager's computers are absolutely chock full of nonsense like that, and there's a lot of "correct per the spec" code you could write that could send it off into la-la land because it doesn't quite work right on the real hardware.
And that specifically is where you need a human to say "yeah but it needs to be written with *these* specific opcodes because *those* specific opcodes will...", and I'm not sure that AI is ready to do that yet.
The root of the problem is the one I run into if I wanted to use AI to write code - AI is a big copy-and-paste machine and does not really understand all the tiny details that we hold in our brains.
Without the implicit knowledge that goes around things like "well you can't do that because..." you're going to get into a mess.
im familiar with bugs i am an a qa engineer i am just saying, like fortran, the mysteries of old programs and old programming paradigms can be demystified with AI
Use the Voyager Communication Encoding manual, which is a 300 page, spiral bound, thick volume in an archival cabinet somewhere gathering dust in a lower floor at NASA
HOWEVER you'll also need the General Dynamics D-30 Line Encoding for Deep Space Comms manual as well, which is in another NASA building, somewhere. Might be in a lab hidden under a Mars Sojourner Manual who nobody can find neither
In most cases that would indicate an organizational failure. However, if something is trillions of miles away, and wrong commands could break communication etc, I'd probably just stick with the most experienced person as well.
Yeah, I'm scheduled for surgery, so my insurance carrier says it's outrageous for the surgeon to come into the O.R. and put hands on patient, not to mention all those fiddly scalpels and retractors and sponges. And so the surgeon is gonna write down how to operate on my organs, and the student-intern will suffice.
I think it's incredibly naive to assume there's not documentation. Maybe look into NASA and the Voyager 2 program a bit.
Experts aren't made from reading a data sheet or process doc. Competence in performing a critical task comes from actually doing the task in practice and for real.
I've found I don't like marking up books, because what was highly insightful and revelatory on the first read, seems obvious and boring on the second read
There are finders and seekers. I’m always impressed with people who ardently believe they know the truth, they can act without doubt, an interesting skill.
I'm also impressed, but not in a good way. I consider certainty to be the biggest tell of falsehood, and I wish to deny the vote to people with certainty.
Certainty of opinion on a complex topic reveals a belief that organic brains can, in practice, judge the correctness of their own reasoning - a conceit that borders on the psychotic, and at minimum a complete failure of self-awareness. These people don't need agency, they need thorazine.
yea it's like when someone is a really good liar - some skills you shouldn't want to have. Being insanely sure of the history of the universe when you have incredibly scant information, is surely not a good thing, unless you need to use it to survive through an illogical and chaotic world
I'm with you. It's not for me but it's absolutely fascinating. There's something nice about letting go and just knowing that it's part of someone's plan. Again, not for me but I understand that appeal.
The world where automation writes in a language no human understands reminds me of the completely pitch black Chinese automation factories, where humans are lost and confused but robots at home
Everyone is trying to figure out how and what are the optimal use cases. It could be like you said but it doesn’t have to be. There’s a lot of incentive for it not to end up like that.
