It evokes a larger brand of similar wordplay which is basically the professional equivalent of "it's not you, it's me". The reason people don't like it is that it essentially tries to trick applicants into misunderstanding their economic interest, rather than just admit they're rejecting you because you're bad.
> If such an applicant gets a job...
Getting the job offer would not cause any of those problems. By getting it you would build valuable interviewing experience. Taking it is the thing that's not in your interest. That's all I'm trying to say.
> I have the conclusion opt-in async/await is a mistake. I think high level language/runtime like c# should handle it automatically...
This is not a good idea unless you like having to make all your code thread-safe (well, async-safe). Explicit declaration of "hey this method might not run all at once or be interleaved with other methods" is a good idea; explicit opt-in is the same in every other implementation of async/await (ex: js).
The median chess player is usually described as mediocre (if you ask chess players). They suck as badly as the median clarinet player in your high school band/orchestra.
> I try to click less on negative stories and more on positive stories.
An alternative approach is to consume news from multiple countries (including your own). It's so interesting to see how all the fnords are different and just how conditioned you were to consume the one kind of media designed for your country.
The answer will either be some socialist rationing policy, or genocide.
Current "work for a living" systems only sustained the population because a human could be the most cost-effective way to get something done. Unless there are still tasks where human labor is the best option (research jobs maybe), this entire economic system will collapse.
> then it's in the best interest of ... the applicant that they not be hired
This kind of wordplay makes sense from HR's perspective. Ex: it "wouldn't be a fit for you anyway", there are "other jobs where you'll be able to grow more", etc.
The best interest of the applicant is always to get an offer (or stop the interview process of their own volition). Not get rejected by a screen and get zero feedback. Obviously this costs more for the business, which is why they have incentive to use that kind of reasoning.
Even if you shouldn't take it, competing offers can be used in various negotiations. And getting practice at interviewing is how you get better at interviewing (and at your actual job).
Depends if it was a standard project format like npm or setup.py.
The risk is, by asking, you indicate you don't know how to use standard industry tooling.
"hey, your starter code is not running in my environment, have any documentation about how to set it up" is a better question to ask when it's some custom script they hacked together.
> We call it a valid instance of an Othello game board. We. Not GPT. We. People who know the symbolic meaning of "Othello game board"...
The board structure can be defined precisely using predicate logic as (X, d), i.e., it is strictly below natural language and does not require a human interpretation.
And by "reduction" I meant the word in the technical sense: there exists subset of ChatGPT that encodes the information (X, d). This also does not require a human.
> There is no way to represent the state of the game without some kind of board model.
I agree with the conclusion but not the premise.
The question under debate is about not just a stateful ternary board X but a board endowed with a metric (X, d) that enables geometry.
There are alternative ways you can represent the state without the geometry: such as, an ordered list of strings S = ["A1", "B2", ...] and a function Is-Valid(S) that returns whether S is in the language of valid games.
Related advice: don't get a math degree unless you enjoyed the above pedantry.
We are approaching the time when we find out if the human brain uses language encoding as its core mechanism of thought, or if it has any tricks left up its damp, fleshy sleeve.
Then there becomes a "material" difference between Othello and those LL(1) grammars as grandparent comment suggested there wasn't.
I would argue the optimal compression for such a table is a representation of the geometric algorithm of determining move validity that all humans use intuitively, and speculate that any other compression algorithm below size say 1MB necessarily could be reduced to the geometric one.
In other words, Othello is a stateful, complex game, so if GPT is doing validation efficiently, it necessarily encoded something that unequivocally can be described as the "geometric structure".
> It doesn't seem materially different than knowing that U always follows Q, and that J is always followed by a vowel in "legal" English language words.
The material difference is one of scale, not complexity.
Your rules have lookback = 1, while the Othello rules have lookback <= 63 and if you, say, are trying to play A1, you need to determine the current color of all squares on A1-A8, A1-H1, and A1-H8 (which is lookback <= 62) and then determine if one of 21 specific patterns exists.
Both can be technically be modeled with a lookup table, but for Othello that table would be size 3^63.
> As someone who is occasionally challenged by finding the right balance between assertiveness and diplomacy, I can see how this AI would be a game-changer for professionals like myself. Your keen understanding of the nuances of workplace communication is truly commendable.
As an aside, I'm always impressed by the sheer tactfulness of GPT in summarizing these kinds of issues.
> Unfortunately it will also mean a lot of junior folks may never get back into software jobs.
Why do you suppose this age-based partitioning is going to happen?
There are a lot of senior people who are less effective than bright juniors. Being a good software engineer can always be learned. I think what's more likely is that the quality bar in general will be raised across all age bands.
> If such an applicant gets a job...
Getting the job offer would not cause any of those problems. By getting it you would build valuable interviewing experience. Taking it is the thing that's not in your interest. That's all I'm trying to say.