Most developers using these kinds of tools these days are actually building their own database management systems, just outsourcing the persistence to another DMBS, so there isn't a strong imperative to think about good design so long as it successfully satisfies the persistence need.
Whether we actually should be building DMBSes on top of DMBSes is questionable, but is the current state of affairs regardless.
A previous employer thought that sql databases didn’t understand graphs. So they made their own system for serializing/deserializing graphs of objects into Postgres
. They never used queries and instead had their own in-memory operators for traversing the graph, had to solve problems like deleting an entry and removing all references, partial graph updates.
Do you mean immediately? At peak inflation wages weren't keeping pace, but wage growth is exceeding inflation right now to catch back up.
Incomes have been, on average, stagnant for hundreds of years – as far back as the data goes. It is unlikely that this time will be different.
> I hope eventually there's a tipping point where the powers that be
You did mention the US. Presumably you're not talking about a dictatorship. The powers that be are the population at large. I'm sure they are acutely aware of this. They have to live it, after all.
> it was common to have company-provided before Google. IBM and Motorola had cafeterias.
I'm not sure that was popular, though (as in something the majority of the population believed in). Grandma in Poducksville almost certainly had no idea. She would have known about Google doing the same, though, as it was blasted all over the news constantly for a while.
It's about the customer recognizing the product as something they are ready to buy, which is associated with the dictionary definition for shipped "(of a product) be made available for purchase."
It falls apart slightly in that the customer technically starts buying the product on day one, while it is still just a glimmer in someone's eye, but "shipping" referring to the point where the customer says "Yes, that is what I wanted" is close enough to stay within the intent of recognizing something available for purchase methinks.
> If you’ve given users the best software ever
Of course, in context, the users aren't your customer. They may be someone else's customer, but that wouldn't be shipped by your hand. Your delivery is limited to your customer.
> I feel that people underestimate the impact of this.
Do they? As a non-American just watching in, I got the impression that Trump won on this very issue, promising that "Christian family values" would bring about a reversal. That was certainly the message, when taken at face value (I understand many believe that it is trying to mask other motives), that made it out of the USA, at least. That suggests to me that the concern is there.
I expect most people do understand the impact, but, much like climate change, don't know how to actually bring about the change that is needed without infringing on the life they want to live.
That's highly debatable. It's one of several issues that I think contributed to his win. And it's unclear to me that he is really very serious about the whole family values thing in particular.
If you were a single issue voter on that particular issue, he was the obvious choice, but I don't think that issue is something on most people's minds or responsible for a significant proportion of single issue voters that could have been swayed to Trump.
Certainly, I think the rabid anti-natalism among the Democratic party is probably more responsible for a shift of any of said voters concerned about demographics than any declared natalist position that Trump advanced. He really hasn't pushed policy any further in that way than would have been considered very normal 10 or 15 years ago. With the sole exception of some states being allowed to implement abortion bans (although the extent to which that is really a natalist policy I think is up for debate, I don't think the majority of pro life voters conceptualize it in that way or expect it to have a measurable demographic effect).
Immigration and inflation and the cultural out of touchness of the opposing candidate all contributed to his win more than explicit fear about declining birth rates. That definitely contributes somewhat to the above fears, but it can't account for them entirely.
I feel qualified to speak on this being from a conservative family and being much more willing to consider Trump than I think the majority of the HackerNews audience is. Also, I'm located in Texas, where my point of view is perhaps somewhere around the median on a left - right axis. I've never once heard birth rates brought up by family or friends as a reason somebody wanted to vote for Trump. That being said, it would make sense if they did, and it's something I'd be interested in, on account of being a little more wonky than most of my family and friends, and thinking it's a serious issue that is still being vastly under discussed.
Technically it is an impossible bar as it, like AI, is a forever moving target. When chess was still considered AI, the Turing Test was considered the bar for AGI. Now passing the Turing Test is considered AI and chess is basic computing. Soon GPT and the like will just be basic computing and the AGI bar you can image now will become the next AI, and AGI whatever next forward-looking goal there is at that point. Lather, rinse, repeat.
One way to look at it is that we've already passed the point where humans can't reliably pass the most famous AGI test ... Ironically the Turing test. After all, the only way for an algorithm to pass it, is for a human to fail that same test.
The Turing test is now considered too easy to be a real test of AI. In other words, these days we think that an algorithm that can't beat a human at "being human" is pretty bad.
I think it's the perfect way to answer what it is to be human. It's reversing the question. Moving the question from some abstract weird philosophical or absurd religious argument into a concrete test. It defines what an answer to "can you create a human?" must be. Can an algorithm convince a panel of humans that it is an (to the panel unknown) human, given text communication and 30 minutes?
For me, that's the definition of 30 minutes of being human. And yes, it illustrates why being human for 60 minutes, never mind a year, is a more difficult problem than 30 minutes. But it's the same a real human would perform.
Would there be extra value in dropping these requirements? Dropping the text-only requirement, do it for a week or two, and maybe even imitate a human known to the panel? Yes, absolutely.
I don't think concreteness is sufficient for a bad test.
A coin flip would be a much simpler concrete test - you are human for the next five minutes if it comes up heads. For me, that's the definition of 5 minutes of being a human.
The problem is "for me" is no less (and probably a lot more) absurd/weird than the philosophy or religion you dismiss. No one I know of (until now) thinks the Turing Test is about "being human".
Rather, it's about whether machines can think. Or imitate thought - hence the name, the Imitation Game. And it just shows the limitation of the time - how could Alan Turing predict the incredible advances in data collection and parallel processing that would allow for giant statistical models that can imitate the output of thinking, rather than the thinking itself?
The difference is that the Turing test is both relevant and actionable. It shows what an engineer must get a gizmo to do to be human (with all the caveats).
And then there's human thinking, like everyone else, EXCEPT Alan Turing, you don't discuss the actual thinking process. There's just this magical thing "to think" that humans do.
BUT is human thinking really magical? There's a few basic tests that you can do with yourself. Pick a balcony, high up.
Would you die if you jumped off that balcony? Answer: yes.
Clearly thinking is not based on with trial and error.
Next: Would you die if I make you hold a 1kg block of 10% pure uranium for an hour? Most people will answer yes. The real answer is no. This won't affect you to any significant extent (sunbathing for 1hr is far worse), and there's people who live their whole lives on soil that gives off more radiation than that (there's such places in the DRC and in Iran, both have villages on top of that soil).
Or more dramatically: would you die if you jumped into the cooling pool of a nuclear reaction currently generating 3 Gigawatts of power? People always answer yes. The answer is: if you don't come within 10cm of the actual fuel rods you're actually safer in the cooling water than outside of the reactor. It is VERY safe. In fact, some inspections are done by divers.
Clearly thinking is neither rational, or at the very least, it's not working from first principles (because water radiation dampening for both gamma rays AND neutrons is enormous)
Can you teach people "wrong" reactions, "wrong" thinking based on feeding them bad data? Yes, in fact I feel like this is often on display.
You will find that human thinking IS imitation + extrapolation. Humans (and most animals for that matter) fundamentally work like that 99.99% of the time.
You can keep going like this and you will come to a conclusion that completely destroys your argument: your brain "thinks" ... based on previous data it's collected, on parallel processing and your brain IS a giant statistical model (read Bishop's book). Why would your reasoning apply to the algorithmic way of doing this but not to the "wetware" way of doing it?
> Would you die if I make you hold a 1kg block of 10% pure uranium for an hour? Most people will answer yes. The real answer is no.
I'm not sure where you got this mistaken idea that holding a block of uranium for an hour unlocks immortality, but I'm afraid "most people" got it right. The answer is yes. Absolutely you would die. You would also die if you didn't hold the block, but so too if you did.
Was this comment written by a chatbot? It is not at all in line with human thought.
> An intelligence should be able to actually understand its input / output (rather than appear to understand), be able to reason about itself recursively, be able to learn and generally have state, be able to have an internal thought process without being prompted*.*
How does that differ from intelligence? (Assuming you were actually trying to answer the question)
I don't understand the question, the comment above asked for a possible definition of an artificial intelligence. An artificial intelligence is an intelligence. I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given
Edit: why would I not be trying to answer the question?
If artificial intelligence is exactly the same as intelligence, then wouldn't we just call that intelligence? People won't use words if there is no useful meaning conveyed. I am not sure you have made clear what useful information is found within "artificial".
> I'd assumed "and not natural / created" was a given
And, really, what does it mean to be not natural or created in this context anyway? The dictionary definition is kind of hand wavy to begin with, leaving whether humans with intelligence are natural or created up to interpretation.
>> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally
Implying that humans don't produce humans, or that human intelligence is artificial?
> It's not exactly the same, it's a subcategory.
So, again, for what reason would anyone take the time to call it "artificial intelligence"/"AI" when, as a subcategory, the intent is already captured by "intelligence"? Terms need to have useful meaning to stand up, and we are still not clear on where you see "artificial" as being useful.
Perhaps the problem here is that you misunderstood the original question? It asked how you would define "AI" as a single term, not how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. I think you've done a reasonable job of the latter, but that doesn't justify the "AI moniker" as described originally.
> You seem to be using "artificial" as "mock", as in "seems like but isn't".
I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?
> I don't remember using it at all, unless you mean where I asked you what "artificial" adds to the term. What are you referring to here, exactly?
I mistook you for another commenter.
What's your end goal here? You're welcome to share your own definition of AI but this feels like sealioning. I think I've been clear enough, if I haven't this comment thread will just have to live without another ultra clarification of my "off the top of my head" comment.
To understand the missing gaps you have left open. I assume you took the time to respond to the original comment because you wanted others to understand you. But, with those gaps still open, we don't yet. If my assumption is wrong, I'll accept it, but then if you don't want to interact why bring your personal musings here and not to your private journal?
> I think I've been clear enough
Okay. Perhaps you could explain your interpretation of my questions towards you to help me understand how I didn't make myself clear when asking them? I had hoped my questions and associated explanations made clear what I didn't understand, but obviously not. Happy to rephrase it in a way that is clear once I have a grasp of what is missing.
> You're welcome to share your own definition of AI
I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.
> I could try if you wish, but under what specific context? Words and terms often change in meaning when the situation around them changes. There is almost never just one definition.
Why not just say "In this context, this is what AI would be"? You can supply a context.
Because communication requires understanding, and arbitrarily making up a random context gives no understanding to what the other person is thinking? If I wanted to communicate with myself, I could simply write in my private journal. Is this not the same reason you have asked the question you did?
> If artificial intelligence is exactly the same as intelligence
Artificial means "human created, not naturally occuring", humans evolved in nature while artificial intelligence is something we humans constructed using our intelligence rather than just breeding naturally.
Its like how artificial insemination is when you make a woman pregnant without sex, the natural way is not artificial.
But in that case you're just adding an additional descriptor to "intelligence". Like "fast car". In the same vein as the original question, what would justify a "FC" moniker? Nothing, of course. There is nothing uniquely interesting about a fast car over any car to justify its own special term.
Nobody asked how you would define "artificial" and "intelligence" independently. The dictionary already has done that more than throughly. Logically, a definition for "AI" needs to be all encompassing. There are some out there that accomplish that, but you have straight up failed.
Taking it off the books takes work, either political or by testing the law in court. That does not mean the law is valid, but in practice it can sometimes require serious litigation and lost years and money to prove that it's invalid.
Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.
> Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex?
Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a good idea.
> Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.
Sure, it is not unusual for a population to instil safeguards to protect themselves should they become too focused on a particular issue without considering the bigger picture. Of course, the very same population can throw it all away at will.
But we're still talking about a population who, even if they have forgotten the bigger picture, have enacted and maintain desire to retain laws around sodomy. What is going on there?
Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex. I will not argue with you about the validity of that position as it's a tangent.
The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :)
It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.
> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives
I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you?
> and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex
Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made.
> Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional.
Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made.
> You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds.
Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place?
You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.
> Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place?
They don’t, generally. They did a long time ago, when those laws were enacted. Since then sentiments have changed, the laws have been found unconstitutional and are no longer enforced, but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them.
I agree with you that it would be neater if they were all repealed, and it would remove the (relatively minor) threat from more extreme factions who do want to enforce them again, but at some point you also need to be pragmatic.
> but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them.
If it takes appreciable amount of time, money, and effort to no longer agree to something everyone already agrees that they no longer want to agree to, the people really need to step back and think about they they are making it so hard on themselves for no reason. Granted, we're talking about people who did agree to outlaw sodomy, so perhaps not the sharpest tools in the shed. But, still, how did the tools end up so dull?
>> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives
>I could, but why would I?
Hmm, I do not understand your position then. To me, if you are saying that anti-sodomy laws should be enforced on democratic grounds (which I think is what you are saying, even though you obviously don't agree with such laws yourself), then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation.
Perhaps you could clarify whether you actually do think that the US should start enforcing these laws.
>Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants
And technically the Supreme Court can rule any law unconstitutional...
You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to understand. How does one end up there?
> then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation.
If I said the sky is blue, do you think I am taking the position that nighthawks don't deserve to stay up late to see the dark night sky? I don't exactly follow your logic. Perhaps you could explain it for us? Frankly, I'm not sure why I would take a "position" in the first place. That seems like a pointless waste of time.
Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. I understand that you don't agree with such laws, but your post is open to the interpretation that you think they should nonetheless be enforced. I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
> Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced.
It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth.
> I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue.
But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it.
If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.
If you really just want to know why some US states have anti-sodomy laws that aren’t enforced (and that most people don’t want to enforce), then it’s a pretty simple story. The laws were made a long time ago when attitudes were different. Then the laws were all ruled unconstitutional in 2003, meaning that there hasn’t been any strong incentive to repeal them in the time since.
See, now that is a solid, logical, good faith response (if not a duplicate of what you already said earlier, and what I already acknowledged as being reasonable). What was the reason for going down the strange rabbit hole of irrationalness earlier?
Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it?
> Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it?
Judicial branch, specifically in the court of NY has delayed sentencing in order to appear 'impartial' and reach a proper outcome on his legal fate [0]. Whcich is apparently a direct correlation from the Supreme Court's outcome on Presidential immunity.
People got all worked up about their rulings but did nothing that mattered, in fact if this presidential race proved anything is that they want a despot in power rather than a mediocre former DA or a nearly senile old man. Ultimately, it shows that Democratic Republics are not just capable of one-off anomalies, his first presidency, but that they tend to skew this way over time. I'm less mad about the outcome of this election then I am with the electorate that saw these people do what they did during COVID and not follow thier own laws and inside trade etc... while not demanding a better system!
I'm not sure you will get the answer you want, but this is only possible because of a complicit Supreme Court can install itself as permanent interpreters of the Law for Life and are appointed for mainly political influence and money rather than competence or merit.
The Founders (for all their wisdom) were explicit in the framing of this country for what were essentially the landed gentry, so why wouldn't it work out like this after wealth and status had been concentrated in such few hands?
There are very clear laws that if you partake in a coup to overthrow the government, as Trump has done, you don't get to be part of the government ever again.
Do people actually care that much about languages? I mean, we're here writing English, which is a complete dumpster fire. Go is undeniable perfection compared to the horror that is English. Clearly you and I don't care that much about languages.
I expect people like Go because of its tooling (what also saves English), which was a million miles ahead of the pack when it first came out. Granted, everyone else took notice, so the gap has started to narrow.
> It feels like it fights any attempt at using it to do things optimally or quickly.
Serious question: Is that because you are trying to write code in another language with Go syntax? Go unquestionably requires a unique mental model that doesn't transfer from other languages; even those that appear similar on the surface. Because of that, I posit that it is a really hard language to learn. It is easy to get something working, but I mean truly learn it.
While every programming language requires its own mental model, Go seems to take it to another level (before reaching a completely different paradigm). I expect that is because its lack of features prevents you from papering over "misuse" like is possible in other, more featureful languages, so you feel it right away instead of gradually being able build the right mental model.
The purpose of human language is communication of concepts between two individual thinking people. The purpose of a programming language is literal instruction for a machine.
These are not directly comparable just because we use the same term to describe them.
To your second point, I wholeheartedly disagree. Go is not a difficult language to learn, nor is it particularly unique compared to the type of language it attempts to emulate. In fact I think it’s one of the easiest languages to learn if you already have experience in C-likes because of how obvious it is what it’s trying to do.
I think it is just a bad language. It’s simple to figure out how you need to use it, but it is obnoxious and tedious to do it in that way.
> The purpose of a programming language is literal instruction for a machine.
Toggle switches are for giving instructions to a machine. Programming languages are a higher level abstraction over the toggle switches so that the intent of the toggling can be communicated with other people. You don't just write code, run it through the machine, and then throw it away. Other people, and probably even yourself, will read what was written again and again and again. The language is very much for people first and foremost, with the side effect of also being understandable by machine.
> I think it is just a bad language.
It is – nobody is suggesting otherwise – but you didn't answer the question. Are you writing Go with Go syntax, or another language with Go syntax? Perhaps the best way to answer, if it is that you just didn't know how, is to post some sample code that you find to be obnoxious and tedious and we can see if it is that way because of Go, or if it is because you are trying to use patterns from other languages that don't fit the language.
In all your comments you seem to be hitting the nail on the head.
Someone can say the German language is a bad language. But it is not the language that is bad, it is the person's perception.
When they try to evaluate German while thinking in English it is no surprise they consider it sub-standard. Germans, OTOH, are much better equipped to evaluate the German language than those who only know how to think in English.
(Full disclosure; my grandfather was German but I only know how to think in English.)
Writing questions and suggesting someone else’s answer for them from an imagined situation is not useful or pleasant discussion. Please refrain from doing that.
You are welcome to answer it any way you see fit, but relaying a real world experience in code where you found those aforementioned attributes to be pressing would be a concise way to answer it. I suggested that to help, as you were clearly struggling to broach the subject previously. Certainly don't hold back if you can do better.
There would be no logical reason to make up some imagined situation. I am not understanding your reason for mentioning it. What is the thought process behind your thinking there to help me better understand your intent?
Or, if this is just your subtle way of saying that you've never actually written any Go code in your life and are just making this up because you read someone like it elsewhere, then fine. So be it. But that would well and truly not be useful. Given that you are seemingly here in good faith we can be sure that is not what is going on here and look forward to your reasoned response.
Whether we actually should be building DMBSes on top of DMBSes is questionable, but is the current state of affairs regardless.