it’s so adorable how you’re trying to be edgy here, one day you’re going to grow and cringe at the memory of yourself, or maybe you won’t and just keep going through life like this

A comeback truly worthy of an edgy 13 year old. One day you’ll even grow pubes.

China does because it’s not a capitalist shithole https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latestreleases/202410/28/content_WS671f6db9c6d0868f4e8ec5dc.html

Yup, because it’s absolutely impossible for China to change policies that would encourage higher birth rate or open up immigration. Enjoy masturbating to your China collapse fantasies.

The real question is how long before they end up being banned in the west like we already see happening with Chinese phones and EVs.

For the benefit of other people who might be reading this thread. You’re the subject here, not a conversation partner.

Even a chatbot could come up with a better comeback. 🤣

on no, not the lobotomy.world

What you’re doing here is called sophistry. You’re intentionally trying to derail the discussion from the actual substantive points. It’s rather artless and transparent.

Stop playing a victim. If you don’t want people to call out your bullshit then don’t post nonsense. It’s that simple. The only one being emotional here is you. Feel free to actually address what I said instead of whinging.

The whole demographic crisis in China is largely based on misinterpretation of the data for the benefit of low intellect racists

• https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108900118
• https://asiatimes.com/2023/07/chinas-demographic-doomsayers-cite-the-wrong-data/

I can only go by what you say here which is frankly nonsense. I’ve explained to you that any serious software project relies on practices like tests and code reviews to ensure quality of the code being produced. Whether the code is written by a tool or a human is entirely beside the point. It should be treated the same way. Anybody who’s actually written code knows that humans are fallible and make plenty of mistakes, so your argument about hallucinations applies to human written code exactly the same way. The way to deal with it in both cases is by having contracts that the code fulfills. My intention is to correct misinformation that people such as yourself are spreading.

You haven’t made any arguments that warrant counterpoints. Go do your trolling somewhere else.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt initially assuming you simply haven’t used these tools. Now, you’ve come back and emphatically stated that you have. Given that what you describe is not how these tools work, it’s very clear that you are being dishonest by your own admission. Now you’re just using sophistry to paper over that.

I didn’t make any inaccurate comparisons. The whole deterministic LLM argument was just the straw man you were making. I’m merely pointing out your dishonesty here, if you choose to perceive it as a personal attack that’s on you.

I guess using personal attacks like a child is all you can do when you don’t have any actual point to make.

I’m not assuming anything. Either you have not used these tools seriously, or you’re intentionally lying here. Your description of how these tools work and their capabilities is at odds with reality. It’s dangerous to make shit up when talking to people who are well versed in a subject.

Correct, my answer does not address obvious straw man points of scenarios that don’t exist in the real world.

Again, you’re discussing tools you haven’t actually used and you clearly have no clue how they work. If you had, then you would realize that agents can work against tests, which act as a contract they fill. I use these tools on daily basis and I have no idea what these surprises you’re talking about are. As a practitioner, I find these things plenty practical.