Practical programming itself does not require this kind of math. The stuff you’re trying to make a program do might; but even then I don’t think you’ll have difficulty in that context. The stuff you’re learning now will have had time to “settle”, and you’ll be working towards a concrete goal, which makes it easier in my experience.

Another thing is that just because you’re struggling right now doesn’t mean you’ll be struggling forever. Math didn’t really click for me until I took calculus. I had a math professor who it didn’t click for until their junior year of college as a math major.

So don’t sweat it. But it’s always a good idea to have another career idea or two in your back pocket just in case. There are lots of reasons you might not want to be a programmer as a career. You might hate it. You might love it enough that you want to be able to do it freely instead of at the behest of others for money.

These kinds of anxieties are normal for someone your age (assuming you’re not nontraditional student). But one day you’ll look behind you in all these worries will seem unjustified. Everything will almost certainly turn out fine.

I am so much more tired of people trotting this joke out every year than I ever was of pumpkin spice.

To be fair he didn’t want to

OP clearly expects LLMs to exhibit mind-like behaviors. Lying absolutely implies agency, but even if you don’t agree, OP is confused that

It did not simply analyze the best type of graphics card for the situation

The whole point of the post is that OP is upset that LLMs are generating falsehoods and parroting input back into its output. No one with a basic understanding of LLMs would be surprised by this. If someone said their phone’s autocorrect was “lying”, you’d be correct in assuming they didn’t understand the basics of what autocorrect is, and would be completely justified in pointing out that that’s nonsense.

I know, but it’s a ridiculous term. It’s so bad it must have been invented or chosen to mislead and make people think it has a mind, which seems to have been successful, as evidenced by the OP

ChatGPT does not “hallucinate” or “lie”. It does not perceive, so it can’t hallucinate. It has no intent, so it can’t lie. It generates text without any regard to whether said text is true or false.

I mean, you made up a whole continent. Why stop there?

This message is in a very confusing format, evidenced by other people in this thread misunderstanding it. It also took me a while to figure it out. I’ll take a whack at rewriting it.

It is policy of lemmy.world to send a message to its users when their posts are removed from a community by a moderator of that community. This message is notifying you of such an action. The following is the reason given by the moderator of the community.

Your post in No Stupid Questions was removed for the following reason:

• Rule 1

They didn’t quote it. That bit was added by the lemmy.world moderators.

She’s always been a “new labour” type. There were certainly people who disliked her before she went full TERF.

Made me literally laugh out loud

As long as we’re living in fantasy land, let’s go the full nine yards and seize all his assets.

Sure, in response to this statement that is a criticism that Biden did not deliver:

This all sounds like shit he should have done in his first term if he wanted Dems to have any faith in him whatsoever.

You said:

You seem to think a president can act unilaterally. Or that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema weren’t holding the senate by the balls until the house got taken by Republicans two years ago.

I don’t think it’s unfair to say you think it is naive to believe that the “president can act unilaterally”, and the natural converse of naivety is being savvy.

Anyway, I fail to see the point of arguing with someone who thinks I am a liar, so I will bow out of this conversation. Have a nice day. Believe it or not, I do sincerely wish you well.

I’m going to say a thing that would be considered entirely reasonable if we were talking about any other profession, but since we are talking about the powerful, will be disregarded:

That is not my job. That is the president’s job. I should not be expected to come up with a strategy to solve their problems. When they tell me they are going to do something, and then fail to do so, they did a bad job.

I used to think like you do. I used to think I was savvier than all the naive people who wanted things from their politicians, and criticized the politicians when they didn’t deliver, because how could they have? But over time I’ve realized that I was being duped. That I should stop arguing that better things aren’t possible, because when people believe that, it comes true.

A criticism I’ll head off: I understand I can’t vote for them and forget it. I’m not advocating for reduced civil engagement; it’s our job to protest and agitate.

You don’t have to make excuses for the powerful, you know. There are always going to be challenges to overcome to create positive change. We should judge people by how well they overcome those challenges.

Everything the Nazis did in the Third Reich was legal. People who resisted them were breaking the law. Maybe we should evaluate things by their impact (pollution/invasion of privacy) rather than their legality.

Technically true, since you could also just replace them with nothing

Executives believe nearly half of the skills that exist in today’s workforce won’t be relevant just two years from now, thanks to artificial intelligence.

1. Executives are such dumbasses

2. That is literally all this “study” did. Ask people how many of their skills they think will be obsoleted. This headline is ridiculous.

That’s not the point I was making, and bringing that up isn’t disgusting.

You’re right. The point I was making was that congressional members are like people with minimum wage. Your response is definitely not dodging my argument.