CodeProject Again





  • I like John Spectacle's response. 🙂



  • Sounds like KevBot.



  •  Facepalm



  • Do you think this is meant seriously? I would then like to contribute this AI

    printf("Hello, world\n");

    This makes the user believe he just witnessed the first utterances of a newly born intelligence, greeting the world that it will soon dominate. And I would already want to welcome our pseudo-AI overlords, whose next line just might be

    printf("bring me to your leader\n");



  • Amazing how that posting was just created today, by a member that just registered today, at almost exactly the same time that you posted the link here.

    Why do I get the feeling that you created that troll-bait yourself, either out of boredom or to give yourself an excuse to rail against CP?



  • @Aaron said:

    at almost exactly the same time
     

    The CodeProject has a "recent additions" panel on its front page.

    Coincidence mitigated!



  • @prof3ssor said:

    I do not believe that users would enter false information because there
    is a general fear of technological power amongst the commoners.
     

    Here I have been doing it all wrong, trying to sanitize user input when all I really needed to do was to instill a sense of foreboding in the peasants.




  •  

    @TGV said:

    Do you think this is meant seriously?

     No, no it isn't.



  • I call troll. That or loonie. 



  • @benryves said:

    I like John Spectacle's response. 🙂

    The reply to JS's response is even better:

    @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Yeah.... right.  Because no human woman is ever going to want to reproduce with you, ya damn kook!

     



  • @DaveK said:

    @benryves said:

    I like John Spectacle's response. 🙂

    The reply to JS's response is even better:

    @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Yeah.... right.  Because no human woman is ever going to want to reproduce with you, ya damn kook!

     

     

    Depends on what sort of bots:

    Fembot



  • @DescentJS said:

    @DaveK said:

    @benryves said:

    I like John Spectacle's response. 🙂

    The reply to JS's response is even better:

    @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Yeah.... right.  Because no human woman is ever going to want to reproduce with you, ya damn kook!

     

     

    Depends on what sort of bots:

    Fembot

    Dude... don't go there.  Seriously.  She has ... gears ... down there.

    Anyway, I think that rather proves my point.  Anyone who prefers the above to the below:

    the original

    is doing it wrong. 



  • @Welbog said:

    Sounds like KevBot.

    It seems to be less racist.



  • @DaveK said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @DaveK said:

    @benryves said:

    I like John Spectacle's response. 🙂

    The reply to JS's response is even better:

    @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Yeah.... right.  Because no human woman is ever going to want to reproduce with you, ya damn kook!

     

     

    Depends on what sort of bots:

    Fembot

    Dude... don't go there.  Seriously.  She has ... gears ... down there.

    Anyway, I think that rather proves my point.  Anyone who prefers the above to the below:

    the original

    is doing it wrong. 

    Actually neither of them do that much for me, and neither are living [according to good ol' Wikipedia Brigitte died June 11, 1996 (aged 88)]. At least the droid might be salvageable for scrap [or eBay] ...

    Sir, I call shenanigans on your doing it wrong and say that the bot wouldn't do it with him willing either!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Welbog said:
    Sounds like KevBot.
    It seems to be less racist.

    KevBot is only as racist as its users.



  • @Aaron said:

    Amazing how that posting was just created today, by a member that just registered today, at almost exactly the same time that you posted the link here.

    Why do I get the feeling that you created that troll-bait yourself, either out of boredom or to give yourself an excuse to rail against CP?

    I have nothing against CP, My Profile, long time user and I do follow the articles 🙂



  • @Welbog said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Welbog said:
    Sounds like KevBot.
    It seems to be less racist.

    KevBot is only as racist as its users.

    Ah, but why are racists so drawn to KevBot?



  • Article deleted. However, there are still WTFs:

    1. The page is served as XHTML when it is not, so it doesn't render.
    2. Community Server manages to delete your post if you accidentally hit Back.


  • @lolwtf said:

    1) The page is served as XHTML when it is not, so it doesn't render.

    It's served as text/html for me.



  • @nat42 said:

    @DaveK said:

    @DescentJS said:

    @DaveK said:

    @benryves said:

    I like John Spectacle's response. 🙂

    The reply to JS's response is even better:

    @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Yeah.... right.  Because no human woman is ever going to want to reproduce with you, ya damn kook!

     

     

    Depends on what sort of bots:

    Fembot

    Dude... don't go there.  Seriously.  She has ... gears ... down there.

    Anyway, I think that rather proves my point.  Anyone who prefers the above to the below:

    the original

    is doing it wrong. 

    Actually neither of them do that much for me, and neither are living [according to good ol' Wikipedia Brigitte died June 11, 1996 (aged 88)]. At least the droid might be salvageable for scrap [or eBay] ...

    Sir, I call shenanigans on your doing it wrong [ ... ]

    Well I'm calling shenanigans on your shenanigans!  I used a fair comparison; those two photographs are roughly contemporary.  If you're going to object to the one who is, after all, actually a warm living feeling fleshy human being rather than a cold inanimate unaware lump of metal, on the grounds that said human is now dead, then OP should have posted a photograph of a small pile of corroded rust instead of a supposedly sexy robot in the first place, or it's not a fair comparison at all!

    @nat42 said:

    [ ... ] and say that the bot wouldn't do it with him willing either!

    You're very modest.... to make that claim implies you've resolved the problems of strong AI, consciousness and free will just in passing in order to be able to say that the bot even has a will to not be willing with!  A Nobel winrar is you! 



  • Ah, I see what you are doing there - do please return my arguments when you are done with them, sir!
    @DaveK said:

    ... actually a warm living feeling fleshy human being rather than a cold inanimate unaware lump of metal, on the grounds that said human is now dead, then OP should have posted a photograph of a small pile of corroded rust instead of a supposedly sexy robot in the first place, or it's not a fair comparison at all!

    Your concept of fairness intrigues me; I can not fathom why you would think it important that the object of his desire have been involved in the movie Metropolis, nor from its era. But if those are the stakes well then, I do support him by default, for one does tend to frown upon necrophilia even if the other alternative is also somewhat unpleasant as well (BTW... I am no expert in oxidation, but I question the entire chassis of that bot being turned to an oxide dust, in under 100 years, if stored even remotely reasonably)
    @DaveK said:
    You're very modest.... to make that claim implies you've resolved the problems of strong AI, consciousness and free will just in passing in order to be able to say that the bot even has a will to not be willing with! A Nobel winrar is you!

    Please reread my post (and possibly the upstream posts that they were addressing) I do not recall asserting that the bot was capable of exercising will - in fact within the context of the statements I was responding to, I believe I hinted at the converse



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @lolwtf said:

    1) The page is served as XHTML when it is not, so it doesn't render.

    It's served as text/html for me.

    I really don't pay attention to markup language standards compliance, and that's the behavior I encourage among other developers (at least outside of job interviews).

    There's so much existing work in HTML that XHTML will never be the real standard. It's similar to the "metric system." Nerds with nothing better to talk about bragged for years about how that was coming, but like XHTML it has remained basically a toy for the pretentious. Supposedly they use it in Europe, but I've noticed that even there many of the really important measurements are still quoted in traditional units, e.g. speed limits in the UK.

    Also, as we've moved forward into the computing age, and become accustomed to the concept of numeric base, the metric system's obsession with the number 10 has ceased to seem rational and has been exposed instead as infantile. How was the number 10 selected for this purpose? "Ooooh... I have ten fingers! The math god must like the number 10!" Suddenly, the use of halves, quarters, sixteenths, etc. in the old system makes a lot more sense... just like the plain old HTML I typed into Notepad back in 1999.

     



  • @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Ah, yes; they will be capable of spelling the word "quotient."

    I can envision several ultimate meanings behind the article:

    1) Prof3ssor is required by terms of a degree program (or something...) to publish an article on AI. Prof3ssor hopes the article in question is minimally compliant.

    2) Prof3ssor thinks AI is a nebulous throwaway term used by hacks to get research funding. The article is his attempt to satirize AI. 

    3) Prof3ssor really does have delusions of grandeur. He has convinced himself that he is a serious researcher in AI, despite the fact that he actually knows slightly less about AI than Minnie Pearl .

    4) Some combination of 1-3, e.g. Prof3ssor is a bitter ex-grad-student who lost his chance at an assistantship to "the AI group." So, he attempted to take revenge by poisoning the Dean with Ricin. But his elaborate scheme was revealed when he accidentally tripped over a bottlecap and spilled the contents of his briefcase, releasing foul-smelling chemicals and blowing his cover. Now, as a condition of his probation, Prof3ssor has to write CS-related articles for public consumption. The article at hand is his sarcastic attempt to comply, while still injecting his own (bitter and acrimonious) opinion.



  • @bridget99 said:

    @prof3ssor said:

    My offspring are bots and they will be brought up in binary, learning
    to program using vacuum tubes, watching movies in 1s and 0s and produce
    offspring whose Intelligence Quotiant is exponentially greater than
    their own.

    Ah, yes; they will be capable of spelling the word "quotient."

    I can envision several ultimate meanings behind the article:

    1) Prof3ssor is required by terms of a degree program (or something...) to publish an article on AI. Prof3ssor hopes the article in question is minimally compliant.

    2) Prof3ssor thinks AI is a nebulous throwaway term used by hacks to get research funding. The article is his attempt to satirize AI. 

    3) Prof3ssor really does have delusions of grandeur. He has convinced himself that he is a serious researcher in AI, despite the fact that he actually knows slightly less about AI than Minnie Pearl .

    4) Some combination of 1-3, e.g. Prof3ssor is a bitter ex-grad-student who lost his chance at an assistantship to "the AI group." So, he attempted to take revenge by poisoning the Dean with Ricin. But his elaborate scheme was revealed when he accidentally tripped over a bottlecap and spilled the contents of his briefcase, releasing foul-smelling chemicals and blowing his cover. Now, as a condition of his probation, Prof3ssor has to write CS-related articles for public consumption. The article at hand is his sarcastic attempt to comply, while still injecting his own (bitter and acrimonious) opinion.

    I'm going with #3 with a side-order of fruitcake, multiplied by net.kookery and then raised to the power of deedle-deedle-queep! <points at ear and rotates finger while boggling eyes and allowing tongue to loll inanely out corner of mouth>



  • @nat42 said:

    Ah, I see what you are doing there - do please return my arguments when you are done with them, sir!

    Here you go, just ignore the stains, I accidentally...    I mean, nothing.  Nothing happened.

    @nat42 said:

    @DaveK said:
    ... actually a warm living feeling fleshy human being rather than a cold inanimate unaware lump of metal, on the grounds that said human is now dead, then OP should have posted a photograph of a small pile of corroded rust instead of a supposedly sexy robot in the first place, or it's not a fair comparison at all!
    Your concept of fairness intrigues me; I can not fathom why you would think it important that the object of his desire have been involved in the movie Metropolis, nor from its era. But if those are the stakes well then, I do support him by default, for one does tend to frown upon necrophilia even if the other alternative is also somewhat unpleasant as well (BTW... I am no expert in oxidation, but I question the entire chassis of that bot being turned to an oxide dust, in under 100 years, if stored even remotely reasonably)

    Your linear viewpoint of time is so limiting!  The robot in the film is quite specifically intended to be a replica of the human woman, Maria, portrayed by the actress Brigitte Helm.  They are therefore equivalent for the purposes of comparison, all being physical manifestations of the same platonic ideal.  ObTopic: This is the exact same sort of "doing it wrong" as so often happens between the prototype and the release version in the IT industry; clearly the original is far superior and some massive design compromises have been made in the implementation of v1.0.

    @nat42 said:

    @DaveK said:
    You're very modest.... to make that claim implies you've resolved the problems of strong AI, consciousness and free will just in passing in order to be able to say that the bot even has a will to not be willing with! A Nobel winrar is you!
    Please reread my post (and possibly the upstream posts that they were addressing) I do not recall asserting that the bot was capable of exercising will - in fact within the context of the statements I was responding to, I believe I hinted at the converse

    Yes, but I didn't see why I should let you get away with that little attempt at diversion; of what possible relevance is the issue of willingness or otherwise to the central question of the thread, which is whether or not the professor could ever stand any chance of reproducing with said woman, whether human or mechanical?  Your objection that the robot would not "do it with him willing" is quite disingenuous, for in the matter of reproduction, the robot cannot do it at all, whether willing, unwilling, or entirely non-conscious.  It would be fallacious to infer from my claim that

    @DaveK said:

    no human woman is ever going to want to reproduce with you, ya damn kook! 

    that I was in any way implying that a non-human woman would want to reproduce with him.

     

    Hence, should the professor's choice turn out to be for the robot as we have been supposing, we should have to say that he was doing it wrong in several categories at once.



  • @DaveK said:

    Your linear viewpoint of time is so limiting!
    Son of a fucking whore.  Will someone please tell me what this wall of text thread is about anymore?



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Son of a fucking whore.

    As opposed to an unemployed whore?



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @DaveK said:

    Your linear viewpoint of time is so limiting!
    Son of a fucking whore. 

    This is neither the time nor the place to be posting your resumé!

    @belgariontheking said:

    Will someone please tell me what this wall of text thread is about anymore?

    Sure.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.