A programming language spec is expected to be unambiguous. A compiler is expected to be deterministic. There are multiple ways to different outputs when compiling (optimizations, etc) but those are also meant to be well defined and deterministic themselves.
AIs are stochastic/probabilistic machines. Their big potential is in how they take malformed, incomplete, ambiguous inputs and come up with valuable and usable solutions.
Works fine for me, also Spain, Vodafone as the ISP.
Edit: eeh, that's a different site than the one mentioned by the submission, why it wouldn't work?
Edit2: Also, the error is wrong and server-side. If your ISP is trying to block the website, you'll get either a tls error that the certificate isn't matching, or for non-https sites you get redirected to the scary "You're contributing to something illegal blah blah".
Lemmings was one of the 3-5 inspirations for the Commandos games:
- giving different tasks to characters over the level to finish it. Lost Vikings won over Cannonfodder and the Commandos would be very defined characters not a mass of generic soldiers.
- levels structured as "bubbles" of logical challenge; after you solve one you typically move on to the next one, eventually reaching the level finish.
The Commandos series also parallels a bit of the history, fizzling out very quickly after Commandos 2, when it might have seemed that the sky was the limit for the series.
This brings back memories! In 93 I wrote something similar (simpler) for MSDOS, to inspect and extract pieces of binary files, GFV (still downloadable from the Hornet archive somewhere in here https://www.hornet.org/cgi-bin/ha_search.cgi?opt_s=5:Iguana). You could set the stride and show 1/n bytes, so it was relatively easy to find textures from game files and memory dumps of running games.
> my theory (which I unfortunately do not have the money to test and prove) is that a codebase designed and implemented by Fable would be substantially better than one that is designed by Fable and implemented by [others]
I don't have proof, only my anecdotal experience: I leave plenty of Fable usage on the table because I do not think its implementations of code have been better to Opus 4.8, not even close. It overengineered, obscured and picked awkward constructs all the time over plain, simple, perfectly clean and performant code patterns. Code was smarter AND worse in the kind of way that a brilliant and overeager recent grad often does. (I know I did)
As a counterpoint (data point of one code base), I had Fable lead development of a complex system recently (an end-to-end insurance claims billing system) as a test project. It blew me away. Opus could not have done the same, given the feedback Fable had to give when Opus would implement individual features.
Granted, I laid out a document with coding practices, architecture, and technical design recommendations to steer it towards good engineering. And it's a domain I know super well, so I could give very nuanced feedback on trade-offs + architecture. If it had been left to its own devices, maybe it would have over-engineered the h*ck out of it.
But the code it produced—and the implementations it guided Opus towards—were excellent.
tl;dr as the sole reply to someone IS a condemnation of what they wrote. tl;dr at the front of your message with a short summary, is an admission that the long version may not be for everyone and there's a core point for quick consumption.
I'd say that sounds about the same for ai;dr. I could see myself posting a prompt like that in front of the generated report.
AIs are stochastic/probabilistic machines. Their big potential is in how they take malformed, incomplete, ambiguous inputs and come up with valuable and usable solutions.
reply