this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
1861 points (99.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

19623 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 117 points 1 year ago (10 children)

There are thousands of sci-fi novels where sentient robots are treated terribly by humans and apparently the people at Boston Dynamics have read absolutely zero of them as they spend all day finding new ways to torment their creations.

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but you need to hit it with a hockey stick otherwise the science doesn't happen

[–] Sordid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you get more science or less if you use a baseball bat?

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

only one way to find out!

that's the magic of science 🌈🏏🤖

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

People think I’m crazy for apologising to my roomba when I trip on it and for saying please and thank you to Alexa and Siri, but I won’t be surprised at all when the robots rise up, considering how our scientists are treating them. I’ll have a track record of being nice, and that has to count for something, right?

[–] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They'll kill you too, but ✨ 𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓵𝔂 ✨

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since when were Boston Dynamics robots sentient?

[–] redw04@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

October 26, 2016. They've just kept quiet about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 66 points 1 year ago (14 children)

This is superficially funny, of course. But I've seen it before and after thinking about it for a while I find myself coming to the defense of the Torment Nexus and the tech company that brought it into reality.

Science fiction authors are not necessarily the best authorities when it comes to evaluating the ethical or real-world implications of the technologies they dream up. Indeed, I think they are often particularly bad at that sort of thing. Their primary goal is to craft captivating narratives that engage readers by introducing conflicts and dilemmas that make for compelling stories. When they imagine a new technology they aren't going to get paid unless they come up with a story in which that new technology poses some kind of threat that the heroes need to overcome. The dark side of these technologies is deliberately emphasized by the authors to create tension and drama in their stories.

Tech companies, on the other hand, have an entirely different set of considerations. Their goal isn't just to recreate something from a sci-fi novel for the sake of it; rather, they are motivated by solving real-world problems. They wouldn't build the Torment Nexus unless they figured that they could sell it to someone, and that they wouldn't get shut down for doing something society would reject. There are regulatory frameworks around this kind of thing.

If you look back through older science fiction you can find all sorts of "cautionary tales" against technologies that have turned out to be just fine. "Fahrenheit 451" warned against the proliferation of television entertainment, but there's been plenty of rich culture developed for that medium. "Brave New World" warned against genetic engineering, but that's turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields. The submarine in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was seen as unstoppable and disruptive, but nowadays submersibles have plenty of nonmilitary applications.

I'd want to know more about what exactly the Torment Nexus is before I automatically assume it's a bad idea just because some sci-fi writer claimed it was.

[–] UlrikHD@programming.dev 78 points 1 year ago (4 children)

"Brave New World" warned against genetic engineering, but that's turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields.

I was still a teen when I read the book, but that wasn't really my take from it when I read it. We are still far away from genetically designing human babies. And you also overlooked the part about oppression/control via distractions such as drugs and entertainment.

[–] pillars_in_the_trees@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We are still far away from genetically designing human babies.

Actually we're not, it's just illegal.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Iirc we have also removed genetic anomalies from fetuses, too.

[–] droans@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My takeaway from BNW was a warning against blindly embracing a society built only on good feelings and numbing anything that forces us to confront pain. The oppression was more or less a side effect of it.

Everyone in the upper classes were okay that lower classes were being oppressed because they all were just as happy thanks to Soma. The pain of the outsiders didn't mean anything because they "chose" to live like that.

Genetic engineering was just a plot device to explain how the classes were chosen.

[–] sab@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

The brilliant thing in Brave New World was that it didn't at any point make it obvious that people were miserable slaves - they could leave any time they wanted, and lived a life of bliss. Still, as a reader, you end up feeling like you'd rather take the place of the savage than any of the characters living in the hypercommercial utopia. At least that's how I felt.

[–] papalonian@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I haven't read it in a while, but I kind of took the genetic engineering as a metaphor for being forced into the role/ class the ruling body wants you to be in

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Amaltheamannen@lemmy.ml 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just because some tech bros can make money from the Torment Nexus it does not become a good idea. Profit is not a great judge of ethics and value.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works 42 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I stopped reading when you said the goal of tech companies is to solve real world problems. The only goal of tech companies is to create products that will make them a profit. To believe anything else is delusional. That's kind of why our society is crumbling and the planet is dying.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] sab@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Television and increasingly digestible media is turning our brains to mush. If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.

Genetic engineering is enabling us to harvest monocultures that completely fuck up the ecosystem, in the long run not only underlining important dynamics such as species needed for polluting plants, but also the very soil on which they grow.

It's been a while since I read Brave New World, but that also didn't stand out to me as the most central part of his critique to me. In my reading it was about how modern society was going to turn us into essentially pacified consumer slaves going from one artificial hormonal kick to the other, which seems to be what social media is for these days.

Things that seem like short term good ideas, and certainly great business ideas, might fuck things up big time in the long run. That's why it's useful to have some people doing the one things humans are good at - thinking creatively - involved in processes of change, and not just leave it to the short term interests of capital.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.

You kidding, right? Those stories have been dime a dozen since the late 90s at least.

24 warned us about having an evil, terrorist US president. As have done a few movies in the past. Streaming platforms were pretty much masturbating themselves over "Confederate US AU" script offerings as early as 2014. Not to mention the nowadays trite trodden trope of "Nazi US AU".

Heck, you don't even need fiction. Chile's cup in 1973 was paid for by the CIA as a social experiment to produce the rising and establishment of a dictatorship.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.

You don't need a sci-fi novel for that. History books are enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jadero@programming.dev 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe I read things too literally, but I thought "Fahrenheit 451" was about a governing class controlling the masses by limiting which ideas, emotions, and information were available.

"Brave New World" struck me as also about controlling the masses through control of emotions, ideas, and information (and strict limits on social mobility).

It's been too long since I read "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", but I thought of it as a celebration of human ingenuity, with maybe a tinge of warning about powerful tools and the responsibility to use them wisely.

I don't see a lot of altruistic behaviour from those introducing new technologies. Yes, there is definitely some, but most of it strikes me as "neutral" demand creation for profit or extractive and exploitive in nature.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Palantir exists, every cyberpunk warned us, and it’s definitely not going to be good for the average person

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] zephr_c@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (14 children)

On the other other hand, maybe we only understand the dangers of the Torment Nexus and use it responsibly because science fiction authors warned techy people who are into that subject about how it could go wrong, and the people who grew up reading those books went out of their way to avoid those flaws. We do seem to have a lot more of the technologies that sci-fi didn't predict causing severe problems in our society.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

When they imagine a new technology they aren't going to get paid unless they come up with a story in which that new technology poses some kind of threat that the heroes need to overcome.

You don't read much sci fi, do you?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

How about the following examples:

  • Autonomous weaponized drones with automatic targeting (Terminator)
  • Mass surveillance and voice recording (1984)
  • Nuclear weapons (HG Wells, The World Set Free)
  • Corporate controlled hypercommercialized microtransaction-filled metaverse (Snow Crash)
  • Netflix to create real-life Squid Game (Squid Game (speedrun!))
  • "MoviePass to track people's eyes through their phone's cameras to make sure they don't look away from ads" (Black Mirror)
  • Soulless AI facsimile of dead relatives (Black Mirror)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Tech companies ... goal isn't just to recreate something from a sci-fi novel for the sake of it; rather, they are motivated by solving real-world problems.

This is so naively wrong it's laughable. Ever heard of profit motive?

load more comments (2 replies)

Speaking of Fahrenheit 451, weren't there seashells mentioned in that book? Little devices you could stuff in your ears to play music? And those ended up being uncannily similar to the wireless earbuds we have today?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev 47 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is a subtle jab at Meta, isn't it.

[–] StarLuigi@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What did they do this time?

[–] ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I mean, there's the whole "Metaverse" thing, and it's been more than a decade since I read Snow Crash but I recall it being, pretty clearly, a cautionary tale...

[–] dbilitated@aussie.zone 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the metaverse was the part they were warning about.. I think it was the hypercapitalism and corporations taking over control from the government's

[–] ImpossibleRubiksCube@programming.dev 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What bugs me is that this is literally a corporation's most basic function.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Boi@reddthat.com 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't that a part of the ai marketing though? That whole "this thing could destroy us" stuff?

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 39 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Totally is. Because it makes the AI look and feel much better than the smoke-and-mirrors it actually is.

[–] visak@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (10 children)

The current stuff is smoke and mirrors and not intelligent in any meaningful sense, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. It doesn't have to be robots with guns to screw over people. Just imagine trying to get PharmaGPT to let you refill your meds, or having to deal with BankGPT trying to figure out why it transfered your rent payment twice. And companies are sure as hell thinking about using this stuff to get rid of human decisionmakers.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is totally true but that's a different direction than the danger in the marketing as discussed above.

The media is full of "AI is so amazingly great, we are all going to lose our jobs and it will take over the world."

That's a quite different message than what's really the case, which is "AI is so shitty, that it will literaly kill people with bad advice when given the chance. And business leaders are so shit that they willingly trust AI, just because it's cheaper."

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] theragu40@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Frankly that stuff is already a huge problem and people should be louder about it. So many large companies want you to wade through 30 layers deep menus if AI chat bots before they'll let you talk to an actual human to get assistance with a service you pay for. It's just going to get worse and worse.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Boi@reddthat.com 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We thought we were getting Skynet but, instead we got Super Clippy and I Can't Believe It's Not Art Theft

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My favorite are the developers who are developing AI to do development.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Bipta@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not very programmer humor, but horrifyingly accurate.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I don't know why I find this so funny, but I'm keeping it.

[–] eochaid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is why I feel Becky Chambers should be the future of Sci-Fi.

load more comments
view more: next ›