BatmanAoD

At the time, she called it a "compiler", but its function was more akin to what we'd call a linker or assembler today.

Do you mean Grace Hopper, who wrote the first assembler?

I agree that a symbolic representation of the splatters would probably be more interesting. The whole point is that random character sequences are often valid Perl, though, so changing the generation method wouldn't change that aspect.

Perl programs are, by definition, text. So "paint splatters are valid Perl" implies that there's a mapping from paint splatters to text.

Do you have a suggested mapping of paint splatters to text that would be more "accurate" than OCR? And do you really think it would result in fewer valid Perl programs?

No, you leapt directly from what I said, which was relevant on its own, to an absurdly stronger claim.

I didn't say that humans and AI are the same. I think the original comment, that modern AI is "smart enough to be tricked", is essentially true: not in the sense that humans are conscious of being "tricked", but in a similar way to how humans can be misled or can misunderstand a rule they're supposed to be following. That's certainly a property of the complexity of system, and the comment below it, to which I originally responded, seemed to imply that being "too complicated to have precise guidelines" somehow demonstrates that AI are not "smart". But of course "smart" entities, such as humans, share that exact property of being "too complicated to have precise guidelines", which was my point!

...I didn't say that it does.

We can create rules and a human can understand if they are breaking them or not...

So I take it you are not a lawyer, nor any sort of compliance specialist?

They aren't thinking about it and deciding it's the right thing to do.

That's almost certainly true; and I'm not trying to insinuate that AI is anywhere near true human-level intelligence yet. But it's certainly got some surprisingly similar behaviors.

Have you considered that one property of actual, real-life human intelligence is being "too complicated to have precise guidelines"?

That's fair, but if you edit the question to explain how it's different (without which, how could anyone even answer your question?), it can be (and often is) reopened.

They also changed the wording from "closed" to "on hold" years ago, and I don't think I've ever seen the people complaining about the site take any notice.

Probably more importantly, it runs on the JVM and is designed to interoperate with existing Java code. (FWIW, I actually think they made a major mistake in how they handle null Java objects, and that Kotlin did better here; but Kotlin is much newer.)

Whoever named the "final final fixed" one seems to have missed the point of version control. 😑