this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
896 points (98.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

19623 readers
2 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 158 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

We will never solve the Scunthorpe Problem.

[–] GeorgimusPrime@lemmy.world 46 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago

Truly in a clbottom of its own

[–] SatouKazuma@programming.dev 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hasn't it been proven unsolvable?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Impossible. There is always some mf named like cum-sock, smh

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 34 points 2 weeks ago

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

[–] prowling4973@programming.dev 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Proven? I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to devise a formal proof around it. But there's a lot of evidence that, even if it's technically solvable, we're nowhere close.

[–] elvith@feddit.org 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Have you tried adding a few more kilobytes of regex?

[–] theterrasque@infosec.pub 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] elvith@feddit.org 4 points 2 weeks ago

I swear, I just need 4-5 more graphics cards to solve this!

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 weeks ago

there's a very trivial solution that always works actually, it's called "stop being a prude"

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Scunthorpe Problem

If only one could buttassinate censorship...

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 34 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't you mean buttbuttinate?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 weeks ago

I have no rebottomal for this comment.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean, you could just use a vaguely smarter filter. A tiny "L"LM might have different problems, but not this one.

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Awww, it's trying its best!

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Indeed; it definitely would show some promise. At that point, you'd run into the problem of needing to continually update its weighting and models to account for evolving language, but that's probably not a completely unsolvable problem.

So maybe "never" is an exaggeration. As currently expressed, though, I think I can probably stand by my assertion.

[–] CetaceanNeeded@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

It causes so much dawizard.