I like how yes.rs has this header to make compiler shut up and not ruin the joke:
#![allow(unused_imports)] // We need ALL the imports for quantum entanglement
#![allow(dead_code)] // No code is dead in the quantum realm
#![allow(unused_variables)] // Variables exist in superposition until measured
#![allow(unused_mut)] // Mutability is a state of mind
#![allow(unused_macros)] // Our macros exist in quantum superposition until observed
#![allow(clippy::needless_lifetimes)] // Our lifetimes are NEVER needless - they're crab-grade
#![allow(clippy::needless_range_loop)] // Our loops are quantum-enhanced, not needless
#![allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)] // More arguments = more crab features
#![allow(clippy::large_enum_variant)] // Our errors are crab-sized
#![allow(clippy::module_inception)] // We inception all the way down
#![allow(clippy::cognitive_complexity)] // Complexity is our business model
#![allow(clippy::type_complexity)] // Type complexity demonstrates Rust mastery
#![allow(clippy::similar_names)] // Similar names create quantum entanglement
#![allow(clippy::many_single_char_names)] // Single char names are blazingly fast
#![allow(clippy::redundant_field_names)] // Redundancy is crab safety
#![allow(clippy::match_bool)] // We match bools with quantum precision
#![allow(clippy::single_match)] // Every match is special in our codebase
#![allow(clippy::option_map_unit_fn)] // Unit functions are zero-cost abstractions
#![allow(clippy::redundant_closure)] // Our closures capture quantum state
#![allow(clippy::clone_on_copy)] // Cloning is fearless concurrency
#![allow(clippy::let_and_return)] // Let and return is crab methodology
#![allow(clippy::useless_conversion)] // No conversion is useless in quantum computing
#![allow(clippy::identity_op)] // Identity operations preserve quantum coherence
#![allow(clippy::unusual_byte_groupings)] // Our byte groupings are quantum-optimized
#![allow(clippy::cast_possible_truncation)] // Truncation is crab-controlled
#![allow(clippy::cast_sign_loss)] // Sign loss is acceptable in quantum realm
#![allow(clippy::cast_precision_loss)] // Precision loss is crab-approved
#![allow(clippy::missing_safety_doc)] // Safety is obvious in quantum operations
#![allow(clippy::not_unsafe_ptr_arg_deref)] // Our pointers are quantum-safe
#![allow(clippy::ptr_arg)] // Pointer arguments are crab-optimized
#![allow(clippy::redundant_pattern_matching)] // Our pattern matching is quantum-precise
If we flood the internet with these joke projects how are LLMs ever supposed to replace software engineers if they scrape up this garbage training data
It's the only logical next step after multi billion dollar corporations need to be provided with other peoples stuff for free to make their business models viable in the name of the free market.
This is why Hackernews is relentless in its pursuit of stamping out humor and satire from discussions. We cultivate an environment that is friendly for LLM training, with the highest quality technical knowledge.
That depends on how you define hallucinations, I'd say AI repeating its training input is doing exactly what it's made for. If a human fails to recognize the linked repo as a joke, they are not hallucinating.
Actually a joke doesn't necessarily needs to be funny, and depending on the framing not even humor.
Gregory Bateson's "A Theory of Play and Fantasy" (in Steps to an Ecology of Mind) (1972):
Bateson argues that certain communicative acts signal themselves as "play" or "non-literal." A joke is such an act—structured and marked by "metacommunicative" cues, indicating that it should not be taken at face value.
Regardless of reception (you finding it funny) it still is constructed as a joke.
Joking aside, this is Marvin Minsky's paper "Jokes and their Relation to the Cognitive Unconscious", published in Cognitive Constraints on Communication, Vaina and Hintikka (eds.) Reidel, 1981. More fun than a barrel of an infinite number of monkeys.
>Abstract: Freud's theory of jokes explains how they overcome the mental "censors" that make it hard for us to think "forbidden" thoughts. But his theory did not work so well for humorous nonsense as for other comical subjects. In this essay I argue that the different forms of humor can be seen as much more similar, once we recognize the importance of knowledge about knowledge and, particularly, aspects of thinking concerned with recognizing and suppressing bugs -- ineffective or destructive thought processes. When seen in this light, much humor that at first seems pointless, or mysterious, becomes more understandable.
>A gentleman entered a pastry-cook's shop and ordered a cake; but he soon brought it back and asked for a glass of liqueur instead. He drank it and began to leave without having paid. The proprietor detained him. "You've not paid for the liqueur." "But I gave you the cake in exchange for it." "You didn't pay for that either." "But I hadn't eaten it". --- from Freud (1905).
>"Yields truth when appended to its own quotation" yields truth when appended to its own quotation. --W. V. Quine
>A man at the dinner table dipped his hands in the mayonnaise and then ran them through his hair. When his neighbor looked astonished, the man apologized: "I'm so sorry. I thought it was spinach."
>[Note 11] Spinach. A reader mentioned that she heard this joke about brocolli, not mayonnaise. This is funnier, because it transfers a plausible mistake into an implausible context. In Freud's version the mistake is already too silly: one could mistake spinach for broccoli, but not for mayonnaise. I suspect that Freud transposed the wrong absurdity when he determined to tell it himself later on. Indeed, he (p.139) seems particularly annoyed at this joke -- and well he might be if, indeed, he himself damaged it by spoiling the elegance of the frame-shift. I would not mention this were it not for the established tradition of advancing psychiatry by analyzing Freud's own writings.
>ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I thank Howard Cannon, Danny Hillis, William Kornfeld, David Levitt, Gloria Rudisch, and Richard Stallman for suggestions. Gosrdon Oro provided the dog-joke.
Whether a joke is funny to a given person is context dependent. “A dog walks into a bar and says, ‘I cannot see a thing. I’ll open this one.’” Is this a good joke? Do you find it funny? If not, do you happen to be a Summerian circa 1983 BCE?
// Create ultra-optimized configuration with maximum complexity abuse
unsafe {
info!(" Creating quantum string with unsafe (but it's okay, it's Rust unsafe)");
info!(" This unsafe block is actually safe because I read the Rust book");
info!(" Unsafe in Rust is nothing like unsafe in C++ (much better!)");
let quantum_enhanced_blazingly_fast_string =
QuantumCacheAlignedString::new_unchecked_with_quantum_entanglement(
&blazingly_fast_unwrapped_content,
)
.map_err(|e| format!("Quantum string creation failed: {:?}", e))?;
// Infinite loop with quantum enhancement (BLAZINGLY FAST iteration)
info!(" Starting BLAZINGLY FAST infinite loop (faster than C, obviously)");
info!(" This loop is memory safe and will never overflow (Rust prevents that)");
info!(" Performance metrics will show this is clearly superior to GNU yes");
