That is exactly what it doesn’t. There is no “understanding” and that is exactly the problem. It generates some output that is similar to what it has already seen from the dataset it’s been fed with that might correlate to your input.
It’s basically the same thing that happened to Homer Simpson. The original did dumb things but never intended for things to fail or to be evil. Of course it is easier to write cheap gags if you throw all of that out of the window.
I see you are a man of tights
If you are able to open your password vault from the device you use as a second factor (which you probably do) the whole point is defeated anyways. Multiple apps on the same device won’t save you.
I see you are correct.
If you use something like C# at least source management and packaging are being done for you by the development tools.
But yeah it needs to do something useful and one needs to know how to operate it. That doesn’t go away.
I mean I can compress any story you like into 3 sentences making it sound completely silly. Is there a point to make?
It doesn’t or do you have serious applications for self-modifying code?
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.
It’s the other way round. Code is being written to fit how a specific machine works. This is what makes Assembly so hard.
Also there is by design no understanding required, a machine doesn’t “get” what you are trying to do it just does what is there.
If you want a machine to understand what specific code does and modify that for another machine that is extremely hard because the machine would need to understand the semantics of the operation. It would need to “get” what you were doing which isn’t happening.
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.
No. Programs cannot reprogram themselves in a useful way and are very very far from it.
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.
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.
Which is exactly the problem people think has been solved but isn’t anywhere near being solved. It cannot comprehend semantics, the meaning of things is completely beyond it and all other AIs.
Unfortunately saying I made a thing that creates vaguely human looking speech with little content isn’t astonishing to most people hence they are looking for something useful this breakthrough machine must be able to do and then they don’t find anything leading to these articles.
Might be true for you but most people do have a concept of true and false and don’t just dream up stuff to say.
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
From the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though
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.
TechnologyConnections is pretty dope