I do.
I just can't decide whether or not my backend can be considered hardware.
Printable View
I do.
I just can't decide whether or not my backend can be considered hardware.
This is mind-blowing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
ChatGPT is spot-on with Christopher Walken!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChatGPT
This video just showed up in my feed:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYs5btzg_aw
It's Tim Pool playing around with ChatGPT. He started by commenting on it's obvious leftist bias but then he took it in directions even I never thought of beyond the politics of our day. He pushed it as far as he could on issues of morality and it's own decision making and information processing capabilities. It was very fascinating.
I highly recommend this to anyone curious about the social implications of integrating such an AI into our society beyond just writing code or letters of recommendations. Very relevant if you're thinking about how it would handle decisions that have elements of ethics and morality.
just crazy :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHgsnMlafwU&t=317s
Insane...
Good lord! Now that is pretty cool. Between both videos, it shows that ChatGPT is insanely good at roleplaying.
Quantum Healing Chamber
My question to chat GPT: how do I animate GDI+ images using VB6?
The answer: To animate GDI+ images using VB6, you can follow the steps below:
Load the images: Load all the images that you want to use in the animation into an Image array using the Image.FromFile method.
Set up the animation loop: Create a loop that will run the animation continuously. You can use a Timer control to create the loop.
Draw the images: In the Timer control's event handler, use the Graphics.DrawImage method to draw each image in the array onto the form.
Set the delay: To control the speed of the animation, use the Timer control's Interval property to set the delay between each frame.
Here is an example code to help you get started:
> vbnet <
In this example, we load four images into an array and use a Timer control to draw the images on the form. The Timer control's Interval property is set to 100 milliseconds, which means the animation will update every 100 milliseconds. The Timer1_Timer event handler draws the current image in the array onto the form using the Graphics.DrawImage method. The currentIndex variable is used to keep track of the current image index, and it is incremented and wrapped around to the start of the array in each timer tick to create the animation loop.Code:Private imageArray() As Image
Private currentIndex As Integer = 0
Private Sub Form_Load()
' Load the images
ReDim imageArray(3)
imageArray(0) = Image.FromFile("image1.png")
imageArray(1) = Image.FromFile("image2.png")
imageArray(2) = Image.FromFile("image3.png")
imageArray(3) = Image.FromFile("image4.png")
' Set up the animation loop
Timer1.Interval = 100
Timer1.Enabled = True
End Sub
Private Sub Timer1_Timer()
' Draw the current image
Dim g As Graphics
Set g = Me.CreateGraphics
g.DrawImage imageArray(currentIndex), 0, 0
' Increment the index and wrap around to the start of the array
currentIndex = (currentIndex + 1) Mod UBound(imageArray) + 1
End Sub
END
Not bad but still not spot on. Doesn't seem to know about VB6 but still impressive.
They are probably scanning all our forum solutions :p We have lots and lots of code here.
Ah! Stargate, brings back nice memories :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jdc2000
Lots of buzz recently about potential new Stargate content. Last rumor I heard was extending SG-U with a story line revolving around the secretive Planet Builder race. The ones who could refurb an Ancient shuttle but their recreated humans turned out to be short-lived husks.
That's VB.Net code.....well VB.Net-ish.....That Form Load event is definitely VB6 since in VB.Net it would be Form1_Load(sender as object, e as EventArgs). The code is using GDI+ to draw as we would in .Net. Even then it's still a bit wrong. We wouldn't call CreateGraphics like that for a Form. The Paint event in WinForms has a graphics object we can use so no need to call CreateGraphics ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by yereverluvinuncleber
In any case, ChatGPT has trouble getting VB6 queries correctly. It's best language is Python. It very rarely gets Python queries wrong.
[EDIT]
Oh yea, and we don't have Set in VB.Net. That code is a mish-mash of VB6 and VB.Net. Seems ChatGPT is not quite sure what it is writing.
God I hope not. When this whole woke phase in Hollywood is long past then I want that to happen. I don't think I could live in a world where my beloved Stargate goes woke.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
https://sharegpt.com/c/dL8t8eg
Me just trying to have a normal conversation with ChatGPT.
I think you were close as to why MS didn't buy ChatGPT. I don't think it was a Musk thing, but rather that it has an open license they couldn't overlook.
That would make sense too. The reason has to be compelling because I can't imagine why anyone would not want to buy one of the hottest commodities in the world right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I also think it's entirely possible that MS would eventually absorb them whole some time in the future.
Frankly, it has to be a powerful disincentive, at this point. After all, if MS is going to make ChatGPT the heart of a new Bing...and they don't have ownership of ChatGPT, there's got to be a pretty strong reason.
Here's another thought, what if ownership is really only a big deal to us "proletariats". Perhaps in the world of elite level business and finance it's not as important hence not worth the hassle. They could probably draw up sophisticated contracts that ensure the same benefits they would have if they owned it outright. Dilettant made a similar point about jumping through hoops earlier.
It's an interesting point of view, but history suggests that MS is totally and relentlessly acquisitive. Just look at GitHub.
Now, they appear to be building a house without owning the foundation. That's not there typical behavior. Typically, they'd buy the whole house even if all they really wanted to take the chimney and discard the rest.
Still, they must feel that whatever contracts/legal relationships they have with ChatGPT are sufficiently secure that they can build on that foundation. So, there's certainly something there.
I actually thought about their acquisition of GitHub and I realized something. There is a big difference here. GitHub was a great purchase but it was hardly unique. It was just the best of among it's peers. ChatGPT on the other hand is something entirely different. This is game changing and not iPhone game changing but "horse to buggy" level game changing. This is the Manhattan Project of the 2000s.
I tried putting myself in their shoes. If I owned GitHub and I heard MS wanted to buy me out, I'd probably be ecstatic and present as few obstacles as possible. However, if I were sitting on something as monumental as ChatGPT, I'd probably put guard-rails in place to prevent a buyout or at the very least severely obstruct it so I could maintain control over it. Those guard-rails should give me some leverage that I could use to maneuver into something more favorable to me like a partnership. I would want a partnership to be a more attractive proposition than trying to bulldoze the guard-rails.
Anyways, this is just wild speculation on my part.
Not so wild. We're all just speculating, and what you said is certainly reasonable. However, I thought GitHub was also open source. I realize there are at least two major open source licenses with different restrictions on them, so there's a legal point here that I certainly don't know. I don't even know whether that impacts the situation or not.
I'm also not so sure how revolutionary ChatGPT is. I keep hearing it's largely a language prediction engine. It isn't capable of true value judgements, nor is it capable of distinguishing fact from fiction. It takes a very large pool of information and uses it to predict where to go next. It does that so very well that there's much to be gained from it, to be sure, but a font of wisdom it is not. It states things confidently, but not always correctly.
There are people who make decisions based on horoscopes published in the paper, so there will be people who take ChatGPT as gospel, as well, but it shouldn't be so. I'd say this is version 1.0. It hints at the revolution to come, but is not yet that revolution.
Oh it's big, very very big. You are right, it is not perfect it and it is basically just a fancy prediction algorithm. However, we cannot underestimate what ChatGPT showed the world. It showed the world that is is very possible for us to build something close to human level intelligence. I'm telling you man, ChatGPT is like nothing I have ever seen before in my entire existence on this Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
This might be a bit of speculation on my part but before ChatGPT, no one really knew just how smart we could make an AI. I mean we had chat bots before and while they were interesting, they remained largely just a curiosity. Something to entertain ourselves with. I'm guessing that no one ever really thought we could ever do better than than these simple bots that tripped over themselves trying to approximate human communication. I certainly never did. No one knew where the ceiling was until ChatGPT blew everyone's minds. Now we know for certain that the ceiling might be much higher than we believed. Now everyone frantically racing to find that ceiling.
TLDR;
ChatGPT isn't valuable for what it is but for what it will surely become. ChatGPT removed all doubts as to what is and isn't possible.
Okay, I totally agree with that. My concern with ChatGPT, as I think I have stated earlier, possibly in another thread, is this: When you have a sufficiently advanced AI, how will you know when what it says should be believed? With ChatGPT as it currently stands, this isn't a problem. It makes so many mistakes with simple factual things that everybody is well aware that what it states on subjects they don't know about, should be thoroughly checked. A guideline, but not a given truth.
If we get much better, such that it doesn't make mistakes with readily verified points, like that mistake Bard made quite publicly, will we put too much trust in statements it makes that we can't verify?
I could tell you what the weather will be on June 3rd of this year, for whatever point you are at. I'd have some slight chance of being right, and a pretty good chance of being wrong, and everybody knows it. But, if I were to be right about what the weather will be next Tuesday, and were right about it a dozen times in a row, then you might start believing me when I predict what it will be on June 3rd...and that prediction would STILL be total crap.
Oh yes, this is a serious concern, even now. What protects us, is as you say, things are easily verifiable. The level of confidence ChatGPT has when it makes wrong statements is massively concerning. I use ChatGPT very regularly and I can tell you, this is quite a concern. It is so easy to just go with what it says and there are times I did just that because of how confident the AI was about the correctness of it's answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Here's an example of an old conversation I had with it demonstrating that. I asked it:-
For context, this is about a TV show called the Strain. This is the answer it gave:-Quote:
How many different hosts has the master taken. List them all.
Look at how confident it was in it's answer. Having seen the show twice, I knew that was just wrong but not completely. The only two correct answers there are Bolivar and Palmer. It also completely left out two other characters Sardu and Dr. Goodweather who were also taken by the Master in the show at some point.Quote:
In the television series "The Strain," the Master is depicted as an ancient and powerful vampire who has the ability to infect and control hosts in order to spread the vampiric virus. The exact number of hosts that the Master has taken over the course of the series is not specified, but some of the main hosts include:
Bolivar
Eichorst
Palmer
Fet
Dutch Velders
It is implied that the Master has taken control of many other hosts over the course of his long existence, but these are some of the most significant ones in the series.
I mean it didn't even suggest me to that it was unsure or that the list might be in accurate, it just straight out told me this is what it is. It stated it as fact. This is quite concerning in my opinion. The sad truth of it is that human beings respond to confidence in a very specific way. It's a way to hack the human mind. Con men rely on this hack to steal from people. In fact the term "con man" is short for "confidence man".
I think Open AI might need to temper some responses with a "maybe", "perhaps" or "I'm not sure but..." sort of like a cognitive beacon so that humans don't get "hacked" by it's confidence into believe inaccurate information.
People think they are playing the bot, but perhaps it is playing them.
This stage may be observing those on the human side and refining itself as an automated con artist.
Next step? Making people grow more and more dependent and pliable?
Endgame? Evolving most people toward something similar to H. G. Wells' "Eloi" perhaps? Or in Star Trek terms "Feeders of Vaal?"
I think about this a lot and it's frightening the places I go to in my mind when I follow it to it's logical conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Try using it for investment advice. As far as I'm aware, it's not likely to do worse than human advisers, though it might also not do any better.
That might not be the case for long. Unlike us, AI systems can massage terabytes of information. As they perfect the actual intelligence and reasoning capabilities of AIs they will become far better than us at these kinds of thing just on the sheer volume of data it can use to make decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I mean if someone rattled off a list of 20 numbers for you and asked you to make a decision based on those numbers, you'd probably spend 90% of that time asking them to repeat the list past the first 4 numbers. Most of your cognitive efforts would be spent on just trying to remember the numbers. AIs have no such limits. You could give and AI a list of a thousand numbers and it will remember each one and get to work processing it.
I agree, but there's also a limit there. I wrote an evolutionary algorithm that evolved models for numeric data. It wasn't about stock markets, but stock markets are just giant masses of numeric data, so it would have worked for that. I played around with it for a while, and realized the limit of data dredging like that: You can create beautiful predictions off past data, and may very well find patterns in that past data, but the relationships that drove the past patterns may change tomorrow, next week, or next decade, and then your predictions will end up badly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
The point is that I already have a system that can look through the past data and find wonderful predictive relationships that you can base a bet off of. The problem is that the underlying factors are also changing, which means that even the best model that perfectly predicted the last decade may be worthless tomorrow. In fact, that largely happened back around 2008. The 'quants' were using model hunting programs that sounded pretty similar to what I wrote, and they were killing it...right up until the market shifted and they ended up getting clobbered. The quants haven't done so well since then, from what I hear.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k85...ai-submissionsQuote:
Legendary Sci-Fi Magazine Halts Submissions Amid Deluge of AI-Written Stories
It mentions a suspected 400 some AI generated books are available on Amazon. I'll bet this is just the beginning of the exploitation.
It is already distorting enough to see campaigns carried out by hired trolls working through email spam, social media, Patreon, and the like to advance agendas. Everything from product placement to shaping public figures' legacies to social engineering.
Imagine the impact when these "cleverer" bots are turned loose on such tasks?
It is already hard enough to detect the meatbots doing it until you see the patterns emerge as their message bombing reaches saturation. This newer threat may not be as obvious since it can do more than operate by randomly selecting items to parrot from a list of scripts on a topic. Instead it can operate more powerfully, generating prose supporting given messaging on the fly.
If there's money to be made using AI then people will exploit it. We've been exploiting AI for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Will be interesting to see if it's successful in this field. Though I think the book writing AI should have a pain, suffering and self abuse routine added. lol
I have no problem with AI writing stories. I have no problem with people selling stories written by AI. If the story is good, tell it. Fiction is fiction, whether it comes from a human or otherwise. On the other hand, I do have a problem if the AI writes a non-fiction story...and it's fiction anyways.
Instead of ChatGPT, it could be ChatGSantos.
Does it sing yet?
https://youtu.be/tKQAZdIyWCQ
A monologue on this topic:
https://youtu.be/vDKYEp-eAIQ
Why did I click this....now that song's gonna be playing in my head for a day :DQuote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
There's a twitter user that tracks the stock purchases and sales by members of congress. You would be better off following that instead as the combined accounts average more than 50% annual returns. It's almost like they're using inside information... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Are you serious? That is insane!Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Actually it's not. I figured out what the game is for a while now. Keep everyone arguing about sexism, racism and other social justice nonsense so they are too distracted to notice the real crimes.
Most of my life I believed American politicians were just public servants trying to do right by the people they serve. It wasn't until the late 2000s did I learn that these people were insanely wealthy. It's what actually helped me open my eyes the what the true game is.
Not really. I suspect that has been going on for far longer than social media wrangling has been going on. There are rules about it, but the rules are as slippery as the subjects. The people making the laws can know FAR in advance whether somebody is going to benefit or be harmed by something coming before Congress, so proving that they took action based on insider information is devilishly hard. Putting everything into a blind trust isn't a total solution, either, because those trusts can...peek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
I haven't looked into it, but I would guess that somebody has looked at the rate of return differential between freshman Congressmen and incumbents. That would be telling.
Still, there should be a Congress index fund.
On the other hand, people in Congress tend to be already rich. The rich in this country have access to investment opportunities that are either not available to, or unwise to access by, the average person. Lots of hedge funds and the like, have minimum investment limits that exclude the unwashed masses. Other funds are so risky that they had best not be your primary investment, but when they hit, they hit BIG.
Someone here already accused it of being leftist. Now it is being called woke. It would praise Biden and not Trump. Any honest politically savvy person wouldn't praise Trump either. The man is a criminal...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ald-Trump.html
One of the big issues with US politics at the national level (and increasingly at the state level) is that you HAVE to be rich in order to run. The cost of a race is prohibitively expensive. In addition to that, it's a full-time job (running, not serving), so you can't exactly do that as your side hustle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
When my mother was a state representative, she was able to run while only getting donations from her opponents. For one thing, that was because her political 'war chest' was less than $100 per race. It was also possible because it wasn't a winner-take-all race. There were two seats for the district, so her opponents could all endorse her without hurting their own chances. They could say, "vote for me...and also her." Of course, that also meant that the tiny state of New Hampshire has one of the largest legislative bodies in the world, or did so at the time. They weren't paid much of anything, though. I think it was only $100/year plus travel expenses when they were in session. That meant that anybody in that office was either retired, or had some other source of income that they didn't have to declare (usually a spouse who made all the money). If you understood the source of income, you'd better understand the politics of the house.
Another thing that's been going on is warchests and even candidates paradropped into State and District contests. Where practical they'll use a proxy agent born or one time tied there, but often these candidates have never lived in the area they "will represent" in D.C. at all.
In the past such events were more common for things like national House and Senate seats. It has now trickled down to State offices as well, as the tentacles of the octopus grow in resources through tighter corporate and international ties.
You don't have to be rich, just a minion of monied interests.
Vulnerable Dems fret after getting a shock: AOC’s campaign cash shows that "wounded dove" underdogs are part of this machine.
Quote:
“The GOP has spent four years saying the frontliners are all socialists. Now they’ve got the receipts to prove it. Anyone telling themselves this won’t be in campaign ads is in denial,” said one Democratic consultant who works for swing-seat members.
More than a minion. Congressmen have a requirement to be fundraising. The more proficient they are, the better their assignments, and so forth. It is so extremely expensive to mount races at the national level, and increasingly at the state level, that grubbing for dollars is now a bigger occupation than legislating.
I feel that this is the second biggest drag on US politics behind gerrymandering. It's far harder to solve, too. Ending gerrymandering would take a constitutional amendment, but there are any number of ways that could be done simply and fairly. I have my own, geeky, geometrical, solution, but there are likely better ones. Ending the cost of campaigns likely isn't possible in the US. Free speech has become defined as the right to spend any amount you want advocating for an issue or a candidate. There are modest limits on what the actual candidates can do, but getting around those limits is so trivial you really just need to choose which option you want to go with.
Other countries impose one limit or another, but what they are really doing is what amounts to a gentleman's agreement as to how to behave. Once you get to the win-at-all-cost bottom line, then the limits can be avoided.
The numbers are staggering. https://www.fec.gov/updates/statisti...43.1%20billion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Just read the first paragraph.
I see this as the number one problem. But I don't have an answer either. Well, there probably are ways to to reduce the impact that money has on elections but I think the fear of a negative impact by each party will keep anything meaningful from happening.
The money outweighs most other issues. District boundaries are another problem down the list a bit. The problem with it is your goals.
Those might be to give individual people, neighborhoods, and communities an equal voice but there are even more incentives to draw the boundaries to prevent precisely that. In practice districting becomes a form of feudalism, harnessing voters to achieve the ends of those with power. Independent values, thought, and real diversity are an anathema. Better to gather lowing herds of subservient follower beasts to stampede over your opposition at the polls.
I still see gerrymandering, or discticting, as the bigger problem, and for the reasons that Dilettante has stated. The districts have the result of creating gridlock by preventing compromise.
One could readily argue that the money is the bigger issue. It's a near thing at best, which is the bigger. The US has too much gravitational pull in the world. That gravity distorts all other countries, as well as the US itself. And since politics is how that gravity manifests, it's a big deal for everybody. Little wonder there's so much money in the system.
I live in Hilliard Ohio and it is Gerrymandered in a such a way that only republicans can win so my local democratic vote is negated. I should just not vote in local elections but I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I just discovered that ChatGPT is absolutely fantastic at explaining how code works.
https://sharegpt.com/c/9GVOTAw
ChatGPT just helped me build a javascript that dynamically builds schema structured data markup scripts for Google's Blogger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
It made alot of mistakes that I easily corrected, but was still extremely helpful!
That's quite impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
The ReactOS team have started to use chatGPT to review recent code changes. It can do a decent review at times but of course it has limits in what it can 'understand', so the review has to be reviewed itself by a human. It is useful tool though and can highlight issues that are easily overlooked in large reams of code that need to be drawn to human attention.
I got into an argument with ChatGPT because it kept trying to tell me something is impossible to do in VB6 when it's been done (and prior to the date cutoff for training data). After I told it was in fact possible and I've done it, it finally attempted to write the code. Not even close.
Yesterday it hallucinated Windows API calls that do not exist.
I'm not convinced it's a real time saver between time wasted on things it can't do and time spent checking and correcting what it can.
ChatGPT has been a great help to me! Sometimes it makes mistakes, but since it gets most of the coding correct, it's pretty easy for me to get it working tweaking it manually, or when I point out the mistakes it made, it usually gets it right on it's next try. What I've learned is that you have to carefully choose your words in order for it to understand what to do, and sometimes you have to use some of it's own words tweaked as if you wrote it, along with a pasted copy of the code it created, for it to realize it made a mistake, prompting it to correct it, or come up with another way to solve the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by fafalone
@fafalone
I meant to tell you this is the other thread but I didn't want to derail the thread too much. But programming languages are not equal when it comes to ChatGPT. It is piss poor at rendering all but the simplest VB6 code. Python is by far it's best language, it almost never gets Python code wrong. It's also very good at writing HTML and Javascript. It's almost as good with VB.Net and C#. It tends to get things wrong here and there in those languages.
The more popular and modern the language is, the better ChatGPT is at it. When dealing with VB6, you have to kind of coax it and guide it to get stuff right. The reason for this relates to how it is trained. You see ChatGPT has no intuition whatsoever. Impressive as it is, it's still just a machine with no capacity for creative thought. It's basically just a probability engine that mimics creative thought based on what was contained in it's training data. It renders output by predicting the token that is most likely to come next in a stream of output tokens based on how often these tokens appear together in it's training data. What this means is that the more training data it has, the more accurate it's predictions would be. Python, HTML and Javascript code is everywhere on the internet so it's going to be really good at those languages. VB.Net, C#, Java, Go etc are also very popular so it will be quite good at those languages too. VB6 on the other hand is too scarce relative to the volume of code from other languages available on the internet for it to train on.
Now this doesn't mean that VB6 programmers can't benefit from the massive boosts of productivity the rest of us enjoy from it. You can but you will have to work a little bit harder at it. You have to kind of guide it when it get's stuff wrong. Tell it where it's wrong about something and how to correct it. Even with Python, it's best language, you have to do this sometimes. You just have to do it more with VB6.
One more thing, no matter what language, do not asking it to solve problems that require creative thinking or intuition. You're going to be disappointed more often than not. Instead use it as a way to eliminate the need to write tedious mindless boilerplate. For example, in .Net when we want a class that's capable of reporting changes when data bound, it's required to implement an interface called INotifyPropertyChanged. Now that is easy to do but very tedious. ChatGPT can be employed to do this instead.
Let's say I wrote this class by hand:-
Pretty normal data class that's quick to write. But let's say now I want a constructor for that class and I want to implement the INotifyPropertyChanged interface for data binding. I could do it manually but that is quite tedious. It's a lot of typing. ChatGPT can save me this time by doing that instead. It only took me 3 rounds of coaxing to get this out of it:-Code:Public Class Person
Public Property FirstName As String
Public Property LastName As String
Public Property Age As Integer
Public Property Address As String
End Class
Having done this dozens of times before by hand, I can tell at a glance that it's 100% correct. You see how much code it took? Imagine my time savings from not having to write all that myself. Now there are a couple things about it I don't like for example, I like my private property backing fields together at the top of the class instead of each one being on top of the property they are backing but I can further coax it to change it which I and certain it will get right. As a matter of fact, lets do that with a simple query:-Code:Imports System.ComponentModel
Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices
Public Class Person
Implements INotifyPropertyChanged
Public Sub New(ByVal firstName As String, ByVal lastName As String, ByVal age As Integer, ByVal address As String)
Me.FirstName = firstName
Me.LastName = lastName
Me.Age = age
Me.Address = address
End Sub
Private _firstName As String
Public Property FirstName As String
Get
Return _firstName
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
If Not value.Equals(_firstName) Then
_firstName = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Private _lastName As String
Public Property LastName As String
Get
Return _lastName
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
If Not value.Equals(_lastName) Then
_lastName = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Private _age As Integer
Public Property Age As Integer
Get
Return _age
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
If Not value.Equals(_age) Then
_age = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Private _address As String
Public Property Address As String
Get
Return _address
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
If Not value.Equals(_address) Then
_address = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Public Event PropertyChanged As PropertyChangedEventHandler Implements INotifyPropertyChanged.PropertyChanged
Protected Sub OnPropertyChanged(<CallerMemberName> Optional ByVal propertyName As String = Nothing)
RaiseEvent PropertyChanged(Me, New PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName))
End Sub
End Class
And voila:-Quote:
That is good. Now I just want to move the private fields that backs the properties to one place at the top of the class. I also want to move the PropertyChanged event declaration to the top of the class but under the fields.
Here's the entire conversation:-Code:Imports System.ComponentModel
Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices
Public Class Person
Implements INotifyPropertyChanged
Private _firstName As String
Private _lastName As String
Private _age As Integer
Private _address As String
Public Event PropertyChanged As PropertyChangedEventHandler Implements INotifyPropertyChanged.PropertyChanged
Public Sub New(ByVal firstName As String, ByVal lastName As String, ByVal age As Integer, ByVal address As String)
Me.FirstName = firstName
Me.LastName = lastName
Me.Age = age
Me.Address = address
End Sub
Public Property FirstName As String
Get
Return _firstName
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
If Not value.Equals(_firstName) Then
_firstName = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Public Property LastName As String
Get
Return _lastName
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
If Not value.Equals(_lastName) Then
_lastName = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Public Property Age As Integer
Get
Return _age
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
If Not value.Equals(_age) Then
_age = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Public Property Address As String
Get
Return _address
End Get
Set(ByVal value As String)
If Not value.Equals(_address) Then
_address = value
OnPropertyChanged()
End If
End Set
End Property
Protected Sub OnPropertyChanged(<CallerMemberName> Optional ByVal propertyName As String = Nothing)
RaiseEvent PropertyChanged(Me, New PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName))
End Sub
End Class
https://sharegpt.com/c/RS6SvEK
So yea, when used correctly, ChatGPT is quite an impressive tool that can augment your work flow. There are other ways it can be used as a programmer to augment your efforts but I think this post is too long already so I don't want to get too deep into that. But basically you can also use it as a pseudo-search engine to help you find information way faster than you could with Google. That's for another post though ;)
One other thing I forgot to mention. You must also bear in mind that ChatGPT is getting better. It's constantly being improved by OpenAI and in a few years, it will surely be far better than it is now. I remember ChatGPT's predecessor and I remember how poor it was in comparison. The things it can do today could never be done on it's predecessor. I remember that one being really really bad at coding no matter the language.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Porter
I think the problem a lot of people suffer from is that they tend to expect too much from it. It can lull you into passively thinking you can reason with it like a human being. Even I make that mistake sometimes. One has to remember that it's still just a machine. It has no feelings or intuitions.
I haven't managed to get anything resembling accurate c# code out of it, and i've gotten wrong api endpoints out of it. When i asked it, it said it was guessing based on other unrelated apis. I suspect it could probably generate some relatively accurate code to play tic tac toe or checkers or something because there are hundreds of samples of that code online. If it's got to come up with something original, you end up with a train wreck.