Kay Ohtie

I figured and I know it’s shorthand, it’s my own frustration that said shorthand has partly enabled the anthropomorphism that it’s enjoyed.

Leave the anthropomorphism to pets, plants, and furries, basically. And cars. It’s okay to call cars like that. They know what they did.

whether it’s telling the truth

“whether the output is correct or a mishmash”

“Truth” implies understanding that these don’t have, and because of the underlying method the models use to generate plausible-looking responses based on training data, there is no “truth” or “lying” because they don’t actually “know” any of it.

I know this comes off probably as super pedantic, and it definitely is at least a little pedantic, but the anthropomorphism shown towards these things is half the reason they’re trusted.

That and how much ChatGPT flatters people.

Python is compiled at “runtime” to a similar OS+arch byte-code minus ELF headers that Linux binaries typically have from gcc.

My point was it’s a stupid distinction and worthless when the other points about poor implementations of common language frameworks are plenty on their own is all, and it’s needlessly snobbish.

As far as class variable reference however I wish more languages self-referenced. In my eyes it makes it far clearer at a given line of code glance as to where the hell a value came from as opposed to just by name. I feel a keyword like self::variableName, or maybe more aptly &self as a pointer to reference in C++ would be very clear, like Rust does, which is very much, by the original definition, a programming language instead of scripting. Even Java, which is definitely not a scripting language though is still run inside a virtual machine, uses this. I don’t personally like the term versus self, but eh.

Though if you want a hammer in a screw-driven world look no further than Electron. I think it puts anyone else’s even purposeful attempts at such to shame.

C/C++ are just scripting languages that have to become OS+arch -specific byte-code before execution.

Wait there’s a “that”???