Antropic ai

[warmer]

AI can be mastered; go to the social media forums dedicated to the new version of Anthropic and you'll find testimonials. Furthermore, AI can be mastered; mastering Prompt is possible, and so are certain other things. What I'm about to say is for all the people who contradict me and seem to be putting me down or something: it's true that you all know everything.

it sounds like you think you have control over the output? You have no control over the output. you have "influence" that is it. there is no "mastering" of AI. That is the entire point of AI. You point in a direction and it goes. AI is not on a leash you control in a meaningful way.

 

[Riamus]

The relationship between students and AI is nuanced. I've heard a group of college students suggest they're aware that using AI to do there work short-circuits their own goals. They really do want to learn. Where it becomes more likely for them to use AI to do their work is when they don't see any value in the class. Another time they'll fall back to AI is when they're in over their head and they're risking failure. Then it becomes a possible way out that could preserve their investment. (As for high school and middle school students -- I have no idea what they think.)

I use AI regularly as I teach in a STEM program and I want to have a realistic look at the tools that are being built and used in industry. Our alumni advisory board (full of industry professionals) is saying students need to be learning AI. I also want to have had the student's experiences and spend some time in their shoes so I can provide advice along those lines.

A student experience I had a while back was trying to learn about lexical and grammatical processing, since I did not get that subject when I was in school. AI proved to be a decent tutor in implementing the lexical analyzer and after that the parser. It was a job too big for the AI itself, but it knew the basics which I did not. It provided examples, advice when I was stuck, some debugging, and even some code when I recognized its suggestions as likely being the correct solution. And, by the way, this lexer/parser was for a language I had never programmed, so my test data came either from a colleague or by having AI write code to be used in testing -- verified as good by my colleague.

If I had to do that with just the Lex/Yacc book, I likely would have given up.

Thus, I view AI favorably, just not as a perfect tool and as a tool that still requires the human to bring the initiative, goals, and smarts.

There was a point in the project when my parser had a bug and I was stuck. I asked AI for a recommendation and it suggested I do "A." But "A" didn't work, so it suggested "B." But "B didn't work, so it suggested "C." But "C" didn't work so it suggested "A." I humored it, and it looped again. Finding the problem was clearly falling back to the human.

Absolutely. Not all will use AI in a "bad" way. And if a student really likes a course, they'll usually want to learn the material themselves. But any course that isn't core to their chosen path of study can often be viewed as unimportant and not worth their time, which can lead to "bad" AI use. That is not necessarily going to happen, and many do understand that using AI as a crutch or to do their work for them instead of just as a tool will hurt them in the long run. But a lot still do use it that way.

Using AI while teaching about it or when using it to assist in teaching or figuring out how to do things is perfectly fine, imo. I use AI to find out how to do something myself. But after I find out how to do it, I also make sure I understand how it is done. That's what I think is key for using AI. Learn from it rather than just use it without learning. For those who take the time to learn with it, it's a very useful tool. But it definitely makes "cheating" easier for those unwilling or uninterested in learning.

In the end, I'd say it tends to be less of an issue at the college level because students at that point generally want to learn about whatever their field of study is and so will work to do so. But in primary school, a lot of students just want to get through it with as little effort as possible. That isn't true for everyone, but it is common. That's where it hurts the worst, imo. It can lead students to now know the basics of things because they relied too heavily on AI while learning the basics. And that can make learning other things in college or life in general more of a challenge.

Anyhow, as I have said, I have no real problem with AI as a tool. I think it's heavily abused, but I think that when used properly, it is an asset.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 9:51 AM

it sounds like you think you have control over the output? You have no control over the output. you have "influence" that is it. there is no "mastering" of AI. That is the entire point of AI. You point in a direction and it goes. AI is not on a leash you control in a meaningful way.

That isn't entirely accurate. Yes, if you aren't programming the AI yourself, you aren't really going to master it. However, you can get really skilled at prompting it to give you the information you are looking for with fewer mistakes. Whether or not someone wants to call that mastering it, it's still a similar thing. I'm not sure what "certain other things" were intended in what you quoted, but they did talk about the prompt, and I think that much is accurate, though I'm not quite sure I'd go so far as to call it mastering AI. But it is similar enough that I wouldn't fault someone for saying it's mastering the AI prompt.

 

[Jost Amman]

The best analogy I've seen is that programming is like architecture. It has to be functional and stand on its own, but there's room for expression in the form of the logic/algorithm used. There can also be a "style" to how a programmer formats their code that can either help or hinder another person's ability to read that code.

There are some that find beauty in mathematics. I've come to understand they know mathematics well enough that it becomes a kind of language expressing logic.

Weird, I always thought that Art was something that ANY human being can appreciate without needing any special training.

You don't need to be a music expert or "know" music to appreciate its artistic expression.
You don't need to be a painter or be expert on art styles or history to appreciate a famous painting.
You don't need to know architecture or to study architecture history to appreciate a particularly beautiful building.

I do think, however, that to appreciate a particularly beautiful "script/code" you probably need to be a developer, right?

 

[warmer]

]That isn't entirely accurate. Yes, if you aren't programming the AI yourself, you aren't really going to master it. However, you can get really skilled at prompting it to give you the information you are looking for with fewer mistakes. Whether or not someone wants to call that mastering it, it's still a similar thing. I'm not sure what "certain other things" were intended in what you quoted, but they did talk about the prompt, and I think that much is accurate, though I'm not quite sure I'd go so far as to call it mastering AI. But it is similar enough that I wouldn't fault someone for saying it's mastering the AI prompt.

In the context of this conversation, that is what I am referring to. There is no way to get an output that is precisely what you are after for an already established game without a human massaging that output into place. AI can absolutely give you 80% of what you want creatively. there is no way to "master" the output. You are essentially the superviser that "approves acceptable output"

 

[ilexev]

Anthropic opère un changement tarifaire stratégique sur Claude Opus 4.5 - Le Monde Informatique

Les modifications des prix d'Anthropic sur son dernier LLM Claude Opus 4.5 ne sont pas passés inaperçues. Ils s'inscrivent dans une concurrence de...

share.google

U can translate easily with chrome

 

[8_Hussars]

Weird, I always thought that Art was something that ANY human being can appreciate without needing any special training.

At a basic level, you are exactly right. Art is subjective and like many other "things" they need to "speak" or resonate with the person experiencing it.

You don't need to be a music expert or "know" music to appreciate its artistic expression.
You don't need to be a painter or be expert on art styles or history to appreciate a famous painting.
You don't need to know architecture or to study architecture history to appreciate a particularly beautiful building.

No, but even a bit of background in those areas can clarify what draws someone to them and can deepen the experience. It could even widen the experience to other styles, other mediums, and other artists.

I do think, however, that to appreciate a particularly beautiful "script/code" you probably need to be a developer, right?

Certainly there is elegantly written and stylistic code. I am not sure code is artwork but it can be a personal creative endeavor. Mainly because its hidden and a bit of background is likely required to appreciate the elegance and style.

 

[zztong]

Weird, I always thought that Art was something that ANY human being can appreciate without needing any special training.

You don't need to be a music expert or "know" music to appreciate its artistic expression.
You don't need to be a painter or be expert on art styles or history to appreciate a famous painting.
You don't need to know architecture or to study architecture history to appreciate a particularly beautiful building.

I do think, however, that to appreciate a particularly beautiful "script/code" you probably need to be a developer, right?

That's an interesting angle. How about poetry? Is it not an art if I cannot understand the language?

I wanted a definition, but they were too concise. Wikipedia offered a larger definition, suggesting it is a cultural activity. So maybe it is a programmer culture?

 

[Riamus]

Weird, I always thought that Art was something that ANY human being can appreciate without needing any special training.

You don't need to be a music expert or "know" music to appreciate its artistic expression.
You don't need to be a painter or be expert on art styles or history to appreciate a famous painting.
You don't need to know architecture or to study architecture history to appreciate a particularly beautiful building.

I do think, however, that to appreciate a particularly beautiful "script/code" you probably need to be a developer, right?

I would say that is too narrow a definition. They say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and not "beauty is in the eye of everyone." That may not specifically refer to art, but the idea is similar. ZZTong already mentioned poetry to someone who is unable to understand the language. A blind person, or anyone else, who has a very developed sense of touch could consider something they feel as being an art form, while most others wouldn't understand. Even your example of music doesn't include everyone since someone who is deaf cannot appreciate it unless it's loud enough to feel the vibrations or if they are touching something like a speaker or instrument to feel the vibrations. So to say that it isn't art unless "any" human being can appreciate it is kind of narrow.

I also wouldn't say that something that requires special training can't be art or an art form. Take something that is written about some obscure historical reference that no one would understand without studying that period of time, but once you have gained that knowledge, the writing becomes a powerful artistic expression of the time. But to someone without the knowledge, it's just a random piece of writing without any understandable meaning. We can also go back to math. Very unique and complex mathematical equations have been described as being an art form by those who understand the intricacies of the math and the creativity required to create the equation. Anyone else would just see a lot of letters and numbers.

Of course, we're talking about things that are kind of edge cases, for lack of a better term. If you're talking to most people and mention art or art forms without mentioning things like programming or math or whatever, you're going to get the common ones - writing, music, painting/drawing, etc.

Here's a video clip of a rotating donut made using code that is also written in the shape of a donut. Could both the code and the rotating ASCII image be considered art or an art form? Now, obviously most code isn't going to be written in a shape like that, but even written normally, it could be written in a stylistic way that could be considered an art form. And the results of the code could also be a variety of art forms - images, sound, text, etc.

 

[Jost Amman]

My personal definition or Art (with the uppercase A) is any human creation that can solicit a deep feeling (deep emotions) in you.

I agree that to perceive Art you need the meanings, so your deaf or blind person examples would be cases in which the person would not be able to witness and appreciate SOME forms of art. But as you said, those are edge cases that don't contradict the general definition.

@zztong : poetry can be spoken (declaimed) and that is actually the original form in which it was supposed to be appreciated as far as I know.

I would say that we need to separate what is an (even exceptional) work of craftsmanship, from what is indeed an Art expression.
If we do that, everything becomes clear, and you can easily see that engineering (in any form) is not Art, but can have its own kind of beauty.

But would you ever say that looking at the Donut piece of code you mentioned, it can convey to you some deep emotion?
Maybe it does. But in that case you would be the weirdest person I'd ever known to be honest!

That's also why (going back to topic here) I don't think AI will ever be able to produce real unique Art ,unless it is a copy.

 

[ilexev]

My personal definition or Art (with the uppercase A) is any human creation that can solicit a deep feeling (deep emotions) in you.

I agree that to perceive Art you need the meanings, so your deaf or blind person examples would be cases in which the person would not be able to witness and appreciate SOME forms of art. But as you said, those are edge cases that don't contradict the general definition.

@zztong : poetry can be spoken (declaimed) and that is actually the original form in which it was supposed to be appreciated as far as I know.

I would say that we need to separate what is an (even exceptional) work of craftsmanship, from what is indeed an Art expression.
If we do that, everything becomes clear, and you can easily see that engineering (in any form) is not Art, but can have its own kind of beauty.

But would you ever say that looking at the Donut piece of code you mentioned, it can convey to you some deep emotion?
Maybe it does. But in that case you would be the weirdest person I'd ever known to be honest!

That's also why (going back to topic here) I don't think AI will ever be able to produce real unique Art ,unless it is a copy.

And martial art? Xd

 

[zztong]

That's also why (going back to topic here) I don't think AI will ever be able to produce real unique Art ,unless it is a copy.

One of the freshman experiences in our school (which teaches networking and cybersecurity) is a discussion of "Dogs Playing Poker." Is it art? Some say yes, some say no, depending on what qualities the individual wants to attribute to "art."

In our case, we're trying to show students that they will sometimes face subjective problems. There can be many solutions that solve the requirements. The best solution can be a matter of debate. We will say "it's a Dogs Playing Poker situation."

ChatGPT sends it's regards...

 

[Jost Amman]

And martial art? Xd

You mean something like this?

Spoiler

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 5:34 AM

One of the freshman experiences in our school (which teaches networking and cybersecurity) is a discussion of "Dogs Playing Poker."

Now I know you're lying! Dogs can't play poker!
You know why? ... Because when they have a good hand they wag their tails.

 

[Riamus]

My personal definition or Art (with the uppercase A) is any human creation that can solicit a deep feeling (deep emotions) in you.

I agree that to perceive Art you need the meanings, so your deaf or blind person examples would be cases in which the person would not be able to witness and appreciate SOME forms of art. But as you said, those are edge cases that don't contradict the general definition.

@zztong : poetry can be spoken (declaimed) and that is actually the original form in which it was supposed to be appreciated as far as I know.

I would say that we need to separate what is an (even exceptional) work of craftsmanship, from what is indeed an Art expression.
If we do that, everything becomes clear, and you can easily see that engineering (in any form) is not Art, but can have its own kind of beauty.

But would you ever say that looking at the Donut piece of code you mentioned, it can convey to you some deep emotion?
Maybe it does. But in that case you would be the weirdest person I'd ever known to be honest!

That's also why (going back to topic here) I don't think AI will ever be able to produce real unique Art ,unless it is a copy.

There's nothing wrong with a personal definition of art. Some people consider some things to be art while others do not. There's nothing wrong with that. One person might consider throwing paint at a wall to be art, while others will disagree. Some people consider "modern art" to be art and others think it isn't real art. Not all definitions are black and white. Sometimes there is room for interpretation, and I believe art is one of those.

I also don't think art needs to necessarily provoke deep emotions. My art when I was in school wasn't very good and certainly didn't provoke deep emotions. But it was still art. A line drawing normally wouldn't provoke deep emotions and yet can still be art. Also, emotions are individualistic. What provokes emotions in you may not provoke them in someone else. And a smile at the absurdity of writing code in the shape of a donut is still an emotion.

 

[warmer]

so....

why exactly is this even a point of discussion? TFP won't be using it. This topic has so little to do with the game and more to do with AI and whether or not its viable

ie. this has next to nothing to do with the game itself. Wrong forum in my opinion