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

Programmer Humor

26466 readers
2266 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 160 points 10 months ago (6 children)

We will never solve the Scunthorpe Problem.

[–] GeorgimusPrime@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 8 points 10 months ago

Truly in a clbottom of its own

[–] SatouKazuma@programming.dev 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Hasn't it been proven unsolvable?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 35 points 10 months ago

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

[–] prowling4973@programming.dev 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months 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 10 months ago (1 children)

Have you tried adding a few more kilobytes of regex?

[–] theterrasque@infosec.pub 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] elvith@feddit.org 4 points 10 months ago

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

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

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

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Scunthorpe Problem

If only one could buttassinate censorship...

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don't you mean buttbuttinate?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 10 months ago

I have no rebottomal for this comment.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 9 points 10 months 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 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Awww, it's trying its best!

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 10 months ago

It causes so much dawizard.