21–30 of 103 posts
“Gaming the system” means your metric is bad. In Darwinian evolution there is no distinction between gaming the system and developing adaptive traits.
There is no "gaming the system" in Darwinian evolution. You reproduce or you don't. There's no way to fail reproduction and still perpetuate your genetics.
We realize test driven development doesn't work, right? Any scientist worth... any salt will tell you that fitting data is the easy part. In fact, there's a very famous conversation between Enrico Fermi and Freeman Dyson talking about just this. It's something we've known about in physics for centuries Edit: Guys, I'm not saying "no tests", the "Driven Development" part is important. I'm talking about this[0]. | Test…
What do you mean with this? I'm a software engineer, and I use TDD quite often. Very often I write tests after coding features. But I see a huge value coming from tests.
Do you mean that they can't guarantee bug free code? I believe everyone knows that. Like washing your hands: it won't work, in the sense you will still get sick. But less. So I'd say it does work.
We realize test driven development doesn't work, right? Any scientist worth... any salt will tell you that fitting data is the easy part. In fact, there's a very famous conversation between Enrico Fermi and Freeman Dyson talking about just this. It's something we've known about in physics for centuries Edit: Guys, I'm not saying "no tests", the "Driven Development" part is important. I'm talking about this[0]. | Test…
I don't want to be the European in the room, yet I am wondering if you can prove the AI Act conformance of such a system. You'd need to prove that it doesn't evolve into a problematic behaviour which sounds difficult.
When the web will get drowned in AI slop, how exactly we will do any factchecking at all?
We realize test driven development doesn't work, right? Any scientist worth... any salt will tell you that fitting data is the easy part. In fact, there's a very famous conversation between Enrico Fermi and Freeman Dyson talking about just this. It's something we've known about in physics for centuries Edit: Guys, I'm not saying "no tests", the "Driven Development" part is important. I'm talking about this[0]. | Test…
> We realize test driven development doesn't work, right? What do you mean with this? I'm a software engineer, and I use TDD quite often. Very often I write tests after coding features. But I see a huge value coming from tests. Do you mean that they can't guarantee bug free code? I believe everyone knows that. Like washing your hands: it won't work, in the sense you will still get sick. But less. So I'd say it does w…
It would be crazy for your code to not have tests...
We realize test driven development doesn't work, right? Any scientist worth... any salt will tell you that fitting data is the easy part. In fact, there's a very famous conversation between Enrico Fermi and Freeman Dyson talking about just this. It's something we've known about in physics for centuries Edit: Guys, I'm not saying "no tests", the "Driven Development" part is important. I'm talking about this[0]. | Test…
We realize that test driven development has a refactoring step, right? Science can happen there if the practitioner is smart enough.
In science we definitely don't let tests drive. You form a hypothesis, then you test that. But this is a massive oversimplification because there's a ton that goes into "form a hypothesis" and a ton that goes into "test that". Theory is the typical driver. The other usual one being "what the fuck was that", which often then drives theory but can simultaneously drive experimentation. But in those situations you're in an exploratory phase and there are no clear tests without the hypotheses. Even then, tests are not conclusive. They rule things out, not rule things in.