DOS ain't dead

https://www.slax.org/blog/27966-Mini-Commander-an-experiment-to-create-software-with-AI-.html

Sorry, a little bit offtopic.

---
Make DOS great again!
Make Russia small again!

> https://www.slax.org/blog/27966-Mini-Commander-an-experiment-to-create-software-with-AI-.html
>
> Sorry, a little bit offtopic.

Has anyone tried to rebuild this (for DOS)?

The Makefile, in particular, is pretty lousy.

I understand that hiring software developers is not a cheap pursuit, but relying on A.I., even if desperate, seems totally unreasonable. I wouldn't waste my time with it.

> https://www.slax.org/blog/27966-Mini-Commander-an-experiment-to-create-software-with-AI-.html
>
> Sorry, a little bit offtopic.

These things now-a-days that are being called AI... are not.

They are nothing more than search engines that grab stuff from their database
based upon the 'search criteria' of the question you asked.

A year and a half ago I posed this question to ChatGPT.
________________________________________________________________________

Can you actually write computer program code? Or when asked, do you
provide an answer containing code that was actually written by humans ?

Its response was...

As an AI language model, I don't actually "write" code like a human
programmer does.

When asked to provide code, I retrieve code from a database of previously
generated code snippets that were written by humans. The code I provide
is not my own, but rather was written by humans and stored in my database.
___________________________________________________________________________

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> Can you actually write computer program code? Or when asked, do you
> provide an answer containing code that was actually written by humans ?
>
> Its response was...
>
> As an AI language model, I don't actually "write" code like a human
> programmer does.
>
> When asked to provide code, I retrieve code from a database of previously
> generated code snippets that were written by humans. The code I provide
> is not my own, but rather was written by humans and stored in my database.
> ___________________________________________________________________________

You are correct. "Artificially Intelligent" computers do not actually _understand_ what is being asked. Just like in the old days when computers could do a "screen scrape" to gather some data, AI just does an "Internet scrape". Computers have gotten very good at turning spoken words into text, and vice versa, but that is all they do. AI doesn't even believe what it tells you -- it isn't capable of believing anything.

Modern scientists mistakenly believe that "the mind (and consequently 'understanding') is simply an emergent property of the neurons in your physical brain", and that "intelligence" will simply emerge from the transistors in a computer. Neither of those things are true, and they never will be. Computers (or software) will never be able to "understand".

Here's an interesting article:

https://interestingengineering.com/science/chatgpts-performance-and-accuracy-has-decreased-over-time-stanford-research

When asked to list the first several prime numbers, ChatGPT has actually gotten dumber and doesn't even know where to "scrape up" the correct answer. When you ask ChatGPT a relatively simple math question that could be calculated with a relatively simple program, it isn't able to "whip up" a program to calculate the answer. ChatGPT (and AI and computers in general) doesn't actually _understand_ what math and computers and prime numbers and programs actually are. It can speak to you in a manner that can make you think it does, but it doesn't and it never will.

> You are correct. "Artificially Intelligent" computers do not actually
> _understand_ what is being asked. Just like in the old days when computers
> could do a "screen scrape" to gather some data, AI just does an "Internet
> scrape". Computers have gotten very good at turning spoken words into
> text, and vice versa, but that is all they do. AI doesn't even believe
> what it tells you -- it isn't capable of believing anything.
>

Thank you !

You are the very first person I've spoken with who also
understands that "AI" is _not_ AI but rather _is_ total BS

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

I think the capabilities of AI tools are greatly exaggerated.

I asked to create a Forth system for me. AI did a great job. Only one - this Forth doesn't work. :)) and it takes a lot of time to fix it. IMHO, complexity for fix is the same as write from 0.

Also, I am ask create pl/0 compiler+vm => the same. Code “looks like”, but it does not work.

So, I could not see a big profit with it.

---
Make DOS great again!
Make Russia small again!

> I think the capabilities of AI tools are greatly exaggerated.
Totally mundane and hopeless for me. I asked AI for help with compiling an old RPG (Omega 0.9.0.4) for DJGPP and gcc, even uploading the (UNIX) makefile to it, and hoping it could give me some advice getting the source, which claims to be compilable by DJGPP, compiled into a working DOS binary.

No such luck. It was worse than useless. Said it couldn't directly compile code, gave meaningless filler about error messages I was seeing and no real help on compiling the game.

> > I think the capabilities of AI tools are greatly exaggerated.
> Totally mundane and hopeless for me. I asked AI for help with compiling an
> old RPG (Omega 0.9.0.4) for DJGPP and gcc, even uploading the (UNIX)
> makefile to it, and hoping it could give me some advice getting the source,
> which claims to be compilable by DJGPP, compiled into a working DOS
> binary.
>
> No such luck. It was worse than useless. Said it couldn't directly compile
> code, gave meaningless filler about error messages I was seeing and no real
> help on compiling the game.

Bottom line is that all of these various things that people are calling "AI"
are in no way shape or form AI but rather all of them are 100% total BS

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/