this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

19471 readers
1332 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It just occurred to me that AI in the nearish future will probably/almost certainly be able to do this.

[–] Psythik@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't wait for AI to make a PC port of every console game ever so that we can finally stop using emulators.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This won't happen in our lifetime. Not only because this is more complex than rambling vaguely correlated human speech while hallucinating half the time.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Off the shelf models do this, yes.

Sophisticated local trained models on expensive private hardware are already dunking on publicly available versions. The problem of hallucination is generally resolved in those contexts

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Sure but until I see such a thing I chose not to believe in fairy tales.

Decompiling arbitrary architecture machine code is quite a few levels above everything I've seen so far which is generally pretty basic pattern recognition paired with statistics and training reinforcement.

I'd argue decompiling arbitrary machine code into either another machine code or legible higher level code is in a whol other league than what AO has proven to be capable of.

Especially because with this being 90% accurate is useless.

[–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AI can literally read minds. I don't think it's that great of a step to say it should be able to decompile a few games.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

About half the time, the text closely – and sometimes precisely – matched the intended meanings of the original words.

Don't be surprised but about half of the time I can predict the result of a coin flip.

I'm not saying it's not interesting but needing custom training and an fMRI is not "an AI can read minds"

It can see if patterns it saw previously reappear in a heavily time delayed fMRI. Looking for patterns you already know isn't such an impressive feat Computers have done this for ages now.

It litterally can't read minds.

[–] sfgifz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Later, the same participants were scanned listening to a new story or imagining telling a story and the decoder was used to generate text from brain activity alone. About half the time, the text closely – and sometimes precisely – matched the intended meanings of the original words.

You left out the most important context about "half of the time". Guessing what you're thinking of by just looking at your brain activity with a 50% accuracy is a very very good achievement - it's not pulling it out of a 1 or 0 outcome like you're with your coin flip.

You can pretend that the AI is useless and you're the smartest boy in the class all you want, doesn't negate the accomplishments.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Being close (and "sometimes" precise) to the intended meaning is an equally useless metric to measure performance.

Depending on what you allow for "well close enough I think" asking ChatGPT to tell a story without any reading of fMRI would get you to these results. Especially if you know beforehand it's gonna be a story told.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk the specifics, but what you say makes it sound like it would be easier to create an AI that recreates a game based on gameplay visuals (and the relevant controls)

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

That game would still not work because there is a ton of hidden state in all but the simplest computer games that you cannot tell from just playing through the game normally.

An AI could probably reinvent flappy birds because there is no more depth than what is currently on screen but that's about it.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It was a staple of Asimov's books that while trying to predict decisions of the robot brain, nobody in that world ever understood how they fundamentally worked.

He said that while the first few generations were programmed by humans, everything since that was programmed by the previous generation of programs.

This leads us to Asimov's world in which nobody is even remotely capable of creating programs that violate the assumptions built into the first iteration of these systems - are we at that point now?

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. Programs cannot reprogram themselves in a useful way and are very very far from it.

[–] yum13241@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then how does polymorphic/self-modifying code work?

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

It doesn't or do you have serious applications for self-modifying code?

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it is wrong. Machine code is not source code.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Never heard of a decompiler I see.

[–] tastysnacks@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try converting from English to Japanese and back to English.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A fancy way to say do nothing is not the same as translating back and forth. Example: Show me the intermediate translation.

Also we live in a 64bit world now old man

[–] newIdentity@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A decompiler won't give you the source code. Just some code that might not even necessarily work when compiled back.

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

From the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though

[–] just_ducky_in_NH@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, boomer here, be gentle.

So back in the ‘70s I dabbled in programming (now called “coding”, I hear). I only did higher-level languages like Fortran, Cobol, IBM Basic, but a friend had a job (at age 13!) programming in assembler. Is assembler now called assembly, or are they different?

[–] Thwompthwomp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought that the assembler is a specific program that translates mnemonics into the corresponding machine code. Perhaps in early computing this was done by hand so a person was the assembler (and worked in assembler), but now that is handled by software (and supports various macros). So programming in assembly would generate a stream of text that must be assembled by an assembler. (Although I have heard people refer to programming in assembler as well, just not often.)

[–] lhamil64@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hear people say "program in assembler" but IMO that's wrong. I'd say you write the code in "assembly language" (or better yet, the actual architecture you're using like "x86 assembly") but you "assemble" it with an "assembler". Kind of like how you could write a program in the "C language" and "compile" it with a "compiler"

[–] amki@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A compiler and an assembler do wildly different things though. An assembler simply replaces mnemonics while a compiler transfers instructions to a whole other language.

[–] menzel@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

What about server site executed code?