- Edited
Jesusemora no. 99% of people can't write clean code, what makes you think AI will be able to?
This is very true.
Jesusemora no. 99% of people can't write clean code, what makes you think AI will be able to?
This is very true.
Now can AI fix code, Like Grammarly?
REVBENT Let's suppose ChatGPT 6 is released tomorrow and it can program whatever you tell it to program. The word "program" here means whatever it meant to you in your original post. Now I'd be interested in seeing the prompt, or series of prompts, you'd give to it to produce your dream game. Can you make a small mental experiment and share those prompts here? I'm also curious about what would be your next step once the ai printed out all 100000+ lines of your dream game code.
lukboy like making electric cars (EWW)
where are all the flying cars?
I really like the perspectives individuals have about this concept. Especially the different types of people i speak to about this. The cavemen mentality being my favorite in the sense of doom and gloom, to the people who believe that there is a possible transcendence into a virtual life. I was hoping to have some level of input from the godot forum, and this has been absolute gold in my eyes. I wish i could reach more people with this thought and document the responses properly just as a time capsule of thought and perspective leading up to and during the assimilation to AI. I think it will happen much like the y2k threat (if you are old enough to have experienced that), and something that just opened our eyes to the need for better planning with computers. Meanwhile you have the crazies LITERALLY prepping and throwing out electronics preparing for the END. Something so basically human of us, but evolution favored the ones who prepped harder. The niche is then filled to exploit that preparation by a "smarter" creature (penguins and rocks for nests comes to mind), creating a new threat to prepare for. I get the "need" people have to fear new things, but certainly the terminator concept is extreme, but i hope the human perspective doesn't create a barrier to really accept the benefits AI WILL bring.
@kuligs2 i feel like the talking computer aspect is a different route, more on the level of visual scripting and may come with some of its shortcomings. the integration of tech into our brains is definitely the "next" big step, and yes, happening as we speak. i more so am asking if the computer will be able to write clean or even cleaner code than we can now, and in what time frame. doing so from the input we give it, what ever means that may be. i think the video generating is more so a method of learning how to "think" like we do, and a process to analyze what we are saying. Possibly a "waste" of time, but all our knowledge (arguably) is formed with a similar method thru our days, from the first one.
@Jesusemora I felt like a no was just a really closed minded thought, not to be offensive with that statement, but id argue anyone who can handle this level of thinking is very aware the shackles of no/not going to happen bring. BUT.... playing devils advocate, as the lack of allowing a response is more closed minded than saying no to something, i apologize for not allowing the vote. I will certainly add the tally for NO mentally. I guess my mentality is more that human error and the lack of shared knowledge limits us to human productivity. So of course humans will write the code incorrectly and need a lot of time to polish their craft. That is where a computer being able to "perfectly" understand the outcomes, would need to bridge the gaps of human interpretation. Once it can understand what we want to say, it could create the fastest path to doing so, kind of like the fist time python code runs (right?), except doing that however many of times with ABC variables for which method really is fastest/concise. Coding is difficult mainly because we are building on ideas from the past, and using them to solve modern problems. That makes our need to prior knowledge immeasurably important. If ai is used to understand the bug and then sort thru a vast directory of how problems were solved before, i feel at least 90% of necessary code could be done by a program and its learned habits. It would only be the really revolutionary ideas that would need some human input to bridge the understanding gap. As far as flying cars, we do have them, but the functionality really isn't there. I had a deep conversation at a wedding with a guest i had met there (jet salesman), and he made a great point that to create something you are safe being hit by another vehicle in, the whole being able to fly part becomes a big factor... just to heavy. i believe there is an english company thats sold them for some time now, but only to the island hopping superrich outside of the masses. The infamous "They" recently made a battery powered flying suit, like iron man kinda... that's more space age to me than a flying car.
@lukboy i think that the "like grammarly" statement is down the path i'm addressing. Using that same process to how code "should" be done, be that simple error assistance, could certainly be done with enough info properly indexed and "AI'' to analyze it. Kind of like The rust language, The blistering speed of C but with the lack of assigning/releasing memory done by machine (I could be totally speaking out my behind, but i think that's how that goes), just doing that same thing on a much higher level from basic thoughts and a Grammarly style approach to making basic thought, become machine level thought. Something to hold your hand as its broken down.
@xyz i don't necessarily mean simply in the game world but possibly that would be easier to do that apps/programs to solve human needs, being they may be something newer/not done before. Basic interpreting of ideas and compiling code that works properly, from simple "human" level inputs, and materializing the idea would do wonders for those people who CANNOT think in a linear level needed for programming. Imagine what could be done by a child's imagination if we could put that into form. The out of the box thinking isn't always applied to gaming i feel bc the process has limitations of what been before. Once you learn to think a certain way, it defines your creativity from that point on. Removing the need for high level thoughts to make simple ideas come to life. Now as far as this being done with the resources available, that is the limitation to me. Possibly the power needed for such a program is just not there for the average joe to access, but that same thought is what makes the google algorithm so awesome right? It does searching on a crazy high level with minimal resources per person accessing said info. Why cant there be a similar dictionary/key relationship with human input to machine understanding. Most likely step by step guiding you towards your directive, not just do "this" and "that" happens.
I will do my best to put an idea into words, but im not saying i have some grand answer here, just wanted to poke others brains on what they thought. Most educated individuals at the time believe flight would never "take off" (forgive my pun) and that the ONLY way that would possibly work, were via dirigibles. Not that all dreams come to fruition, the majority don't, but this level of thought/banter is essential for the advents of tomorrow.
This is a concept for a planning/goal app that i had hoped to make at some point, very super rough iteration, but i think it gets the point across perfectly... its sort of an idea to take the habits of Tamagotchi and apply that to a goal oriented planning/tracking app.
REVBENT Your responses look generated . At least separate the paragraphs for easier reading.
Not everything that seems impossible now, should be considered possible in the future, especially if the only argument for that is merely "the power of endless progress."
Just because some things that looked impossible in the past came into realization now, doesn't mean that everything imaginable now, will become possible in the future. It's a fallacy, and I don't think it has a name yet in the pantheon of common fallacies.
There's the domain of genuinely not possible, as opposed to the domain of just seemingly impossible. It takes intelligence and knowledge and wisdom to discern between the two.
To put it more poetically. We all know that Clarke said that Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It may indeed be so. Let's accept it as a premise. However, from this it doesn't follow that any imaginable magic is possible thru sufficiently advanced technology. Yet, sadly, this is precisely what many a techno-zealot nowadays infer. It's again a fallacy. In first order logic no less.
REVBENT the y2k threat
The y2038 threat is only 14 years away.
DaveTheCoder The y2038 threat is only 14 years away.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. There are dozen other apocalypses scheduled between now and then.
Jesusemora where are all the flying cars?
Autogyros or gyrocopters have existed a long time now, most people just don't really need one.
Megalomaniak Autogyros or gyrocopters have existed a long time now, most people just don't really need one.
Yeah but we were promised flying 70s mustangs, not those cardboard beanpods.
Jesusemora where are all the flying cars?
xyz Yeah but we were promised flying 70s mustangs, not those cardboard beanpods.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to look further.
Tomcat Sorry, I'm too lazy to look further.
https://auto-gyro.com/calidus-gyromotion/
https://www.gyromotion.eu/home
@Megalomaniak @Tomcat A small helicopter is not a flying car Neither is an airplane that has a car body attached to it. Give us the proper flying cars, like Deckard's:
Human civilization (from the first stationary settlements) is about 7K years old. (By some assumptions — 9-10K.) An error of 10 years is less than a statistical error. Wait a bit, about 50-100 years — and they will appear.
xyz I mean given enough force even a brick can fly, but unless we get extremely safe miniature fusion power plants I don't see it happening. But there are street legal autogyros for certain regions and places. Whether it's a horse driver cart or motorized, whether it has 2 wheel or 3 or 4. If it can carry passengers, and go from point A to B I'd say it's a car[t].
Also, a autogyro, while a rotor vehicle isn't exactly the same thing as a helicopter. Gyrocopter is an applicable alternative term. The top rotor is freely moving, and not motorized. It can't do VTO like a helicopter can, though both can do autorotation for landing safely given the operator does the right things for that(in case of helis engine needs to be disengaged).
@xyz i do admittedly engage in run on sentences and paragraphs. I find it easier to type how i think than try to type how others read. I will try to break it up some more, i thought i already had, i think the new lines ill just put empty spaces between.
That does make me wonder what a chat bot would have to say about all this. I may have to put a little time in that direction. As far as chasing a fallacy. I completely agree that most whimsical ideas don't come to reality, but all grand ideas do start as an absurd notion to someone. The realists certainly have their place and probably take the "W" more than the dreamers, but from electricity, flight, space travel, genetics, computing, etc most of those ideas came from a place of absurdity from the "realists" at the time.
@kuligs2 in my high school physics class we had a "hover board", it was a hover craft imo. It did work and made a great way to get the class interested in the lesson(s) for a chance to "ride" on it. You'd get a small push and float around a little bit, it did have to be plugged in to run so you could only move so far. I know i saw a drone style hover board, if that counts? https://omnihoverboards.com
@DaveTheCoder I remember first seeing that in cs50... and was pretty amazed at how fast time goes by. Hopefully they dont forger an old nuclear bunker lol