March 2023 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Smalltalk Meetup in Zurich, 12 May 2023

by Peter Ursprung

Hi all, We are organizing the next Smalltalk Meetup in Zurich, Switzerland. It will be on Friday, May 12, 2023, starting at 18:00. We will meet in a meeting room where we will have short Smalltalk talks, afterwards we will go to a restaurant nearby. If you are interested, please let me know until Sunday, May 7, I will send you the details including the precise location. Also, if you would like to present something, please let me know as well. There will be enough time for some more talks. Regards, Peter -- Ursprung Software Loren-Allee 18 â¢ 8610 Uster Telefon 044 450 72 72 â¢ info(a)ursprung.ch

March 31, 2023

This week (13/2023) on the Pharo Issue Tracker

by Marcus Denker

We again merged ~60 PRs. Pharo11 got some bugfixes and last improvements. In Pharo12, we continue the compiler refactoring and the cleanup of ClassOrganizer. Pharo11 ======= Last Improvements ================= - Add a way to know the real processor architecture #13124 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13124 - remove end line characters in returned value of processorArchitecture #13155 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13155 - Removing unused instance variable topContext in DebugContext #13179 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13179 - Add inspector extensions for Chronology #499 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/499 - More inspector extensions #497 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/497 Fixes ===== - 13181-DeprecationPerformedNotification-Automatic-deprecation-code-rewrite #13182 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13182 - implement #selectedClassOrMetaClass in MCTool to return nil #13167 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13167 - 13141-timesRepeat-does-not-work-on-nested-loops #13154 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13154 - 13122 rbparser cutting tokens in stepBar [Pharo11] #13129 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13129 - fixing the code update bug after compiling a missing method with the unfiltered stack #491 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/491 - Categorizing uncategorized classes in new tools debugger tests #500 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/500 - SpCodeInteractionModel>>#notify: Avoid crashing #1363 https://github.com/pharo-spec/Spec/pull/1363 - SpDropListExampleTest does not opens Playgorunds anymore #1359 https://github.com/pharo-spec/Spec/pull/1359 Pharo12 ======= Speed ===== - speedup-testNoShadowedVariablesInMethods #13170 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13170 - Speed up #assertCollection:hasSameElements: in case they are equals. #13144 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13144 ClassOrganizer Cleanup ====================== - Inline extensions of protocol organizer #13194 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13194 - ChangeRecord: rename category into protocol #13188 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13188 - Inline some protocol organizer behavior #13191 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13191 - remove commentSourcePointer from ClassOrganization #13176 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13176 - Set-CommentSourcepointer-ClassDescription #13171 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13171 - Update behaviour of #protocolNamed: #13173 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13173 - Simplify and deprecate ClassDescription>>allProtocolsUpTo: #13160 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13160 - ProtocolOrganizer cleanings #13169 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13169 - ClassComments-Via-Class #13168 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13168 - Rename #nullCategory into #nullProtocolName #13157 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13157 Compiler Cleanup ================ - Remove RBInstanceVariableNode crufts #13199 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13199 - Faulty code: Make OCUndeclaredVariableWarning a little less special #13186 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13186 - Compiler source code is String #13184 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13184 - Factorize recompile:from: #13180 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13180 - OpalCompiler gain install #13152 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13152 - Faulty code: improve code error descriptions #13174 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13174 - Faulty code: make OCASTSemanticAnalyzer (almost) faulty only #13165 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13165 - CodeImport - stop requestor madness #13162 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13162 - Faulty code - signal mainly CodeError #13164 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13164 - Faulty code improve scanner on error tokens #13135 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13135 - Faulty code: introduce invalid variables #13148 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13148 - CodeSnippet: can update itself thaks to metaprogramming and code transformation #13127 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13127 - Faulty code: cleanup CodeError #13163 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13163 - Faulty code: improve shadowing policy and implementation #13132 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13132 - Faulty code: improve error on unexpected block parameter #13133 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13133 - 13122 rbparser cutting tokens in stepBar [Pharo12] #13130 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13130 Refactoring Engine ================== - Refactorings clean up #13131 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13131 - Refactoring push down method command to use driver #13099 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13099 - Remove duplicated mocking #13151 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13151 Improvements ============= - Improve announcements printing #13178 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13178 - Clean copying methods of ClassDescription #13159 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13159 - More explicit error message for slot usage in bootstrap #13145 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13145 - move bootstrap/src into main src #13016 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13016 Cleanups ======== - OSPlatformTest should be in System-Platforms-Tests #13192 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13192 - Factorize announcement subscribers #13185 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13185 - Synch with p11 #13147 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13147

March 31, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by danhunfeldz＠mail.com

I asked ChatGPT to write âHello, World!â in different esoteric programming languages: Kylix: `program HelloWorld; ` ` begin WriteLn('Hello, World!'); ` `end.` ActionScript (Flash 8): `trace("Hello, World!");` Limbo: `include "sys.m"; ` `include "draw.m"; ` `include "arg.m"; ` `draw->init(nil, "hello"); ` `sys->print("Hello, World!\n");` Alef: `include "sys.m"; ` `include "draw.m"; ` `init(nil, nil); ` `write("Hello, World!\n");` Alef was the predecessor of Limbo, which is the ancestor of Go. The results are not even close. ActionScript not even close. Kylix was wrong too. None of them are way out there. If anyone has worked on Plan 9 then they have heard of Alef and Limbo. Limbo is used for Inferno OS which was created from Plan 9 for set top boxes and came out about the same time as Java. What ChatGPT gave are not even starting points, except maybe Kylix and it derived the answer given from Delphi.

March 27, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by Richard O'Keefe

I tried it on three "dead" languages: - a bubble-sort in Pop-2 - a system of linear equations solver in IMP-80 - the array concatenation example in SNOBOL 4 from Rosetta Code. It got the first one right -- despite 'array' access being written 'subscr(index, array)' -- and the second one almost right -- mistaking an nxn array for a 2n array. It got the third one (which I had stripped of comments) right too. It's impressive. And it's impressive because it's clearly NOT based on analysing a large corpus of code in the language you give it (because there IS no corpus of Pop-2 and the available corpus of IMP is both limited and very sparsely commented. Not much SNOBOL either. On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 20:07, Tim Mackinnon <tim(a)testit.works> wrote: > Of course everyone is talking about ChatGPT, and I saw a post to > ExplainCode and didnât expect it to understand Smalltalk, so was impressed > that it does! Presumably the Tonel Smalltalk code on GitHub has helped > along with numerous articles? > > Try it out: https://whatdoesthiscodedo.com/ > > I gave this simple example: (1 to: 100 by: 3) reject: [:i | i isOdd] > > And got this (neat eh): > > The code above is written in the programming language Smalltalk. > > It creates a collection of numbers from 1 to 100, incrementing by 3 at > each step. This is done using the "to:by:" construct where the starting > value is 1, the ending value is 100, and the increment is 3. > > The resulting collection is then filtered using the "reject:" method, > which takes a block of code as an argument. In this case, the block checks > whether each element (denoted by the variable i) is odd by using the > "isOdd" method. If an element is odd, it will be rejected from the > collection. > > So, the final result is a collection of all even numbers from 1 to 100, > incrementing by 3 at each step. > Share this explanation with colleagues: whatdoesthiscodedo.com/g/a0ec56e >

March 27, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Dear anonymous, Me neither. It is pretty difficult to make constructive discourse against hidden agendas, ulterior motives, self evident truths, sources absence or general affirmations without particular examples or detailed sustain. Offray On 26/03/23 14:16, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users wrote: > Dear Offray, > > I have nothing to comment on this. > > --- > > In general I have made the observation that certain people who want to push an agenda to promote alterior motives tend to reiterate false prepositions and so false conclusions over and over. > > If there is an apodictic statement that contradicts their alterior motives, this people just can't help themselves but to deny truth against better knowledge ad nauseam. > > > On 26.3.2023 at 8:34 PM, "Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas" <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Comments inlined below: >> >> On 22/03/23 7:34, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users wrote: >>> Offray, and to all others, >>> >>> you are missing the issue. >>> >>> The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a >> system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a >> human. >>> This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by >> millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', >> right?) >>> ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to >> convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, >> chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait >> pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices, >> phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called. >> They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that >> ALL information about every single internet user in available and >> is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use >> this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the >> useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his >> internet activity. >>> These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms >> with life like names, 'pretending' to be human. >>> These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most >> social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology >> to manufacture consent. >>> The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to >> manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI >> chat bots, right? >> >> I don't think I have missed the point, as we agreed (I think) on >> chatbots not being intelligent, just having such appearance. That >> why >> I'm calling "AI" #ApparentIntelligence (in the sense of look >> alike, but >> not real). Of course, something looking like a real thing without >> being >> the real thing can be used for manipulation since the first times >> of >> gossip, printing press and now automatization, with the changes in >> scale/danger that such medium changes imply. >> >> I don't think that manufactured consent is so easy, as this very >> thread >> shows. What is being automated is manufactured polarization (but >> humans >> can do pretty well by our own on polarization). >> >> >>> How can this be achieved? >>> >>> Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to >>> - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then >>> - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the >> propaganda content, then >>> - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as >> something to wish for, >>> - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals >> of the propaganda content. >>> Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post >> follows, Offray. >> >> On the contrary, my post is advocating for a critical reading of >> Apparent Intelligence, by reframing the terms and the acritical >> technoutopic / technoapocalyptic readings/discourses that are >> spreading >> rapidly on the wider web, as I think that this community has shown >> an >> historical different position beyond/resisting hype and current >> trends. >> So I don't see how any of the steps you mention are "blueprint >> followed" >> in my post, and I think they will be difficult to locate without >> specific examples. >> >> >>> This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our >> conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - >> here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts >> exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup. >>> Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, >> discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others >> and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus >> manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable >> 'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have >> identified as an adversary. >>> Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with >> 'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of >> collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader. >> >> Heh, heh. On the contrary seems that the one seeing a scheme and a >> enemies location/confrontation with deep plots and tactics is you. >> Providing external creditable sources beyond opinion, belonging to >> a >> established discursive falsafiable tradition (i.e. one that you >> can >> criticize instead of blindly accept) is a way to enrich >> discourse/argumentation beyond conspiracy theories. You could also >> quote >> your sources instead, which would allow the community to see where >> our >> positions are hold/sustained, even if we use different domain >> frames, >> which is better that claiming no domain or expertise in pursuit of >> openness. So instead of this are my opinions without any external >> source >> or reference to pretend no expertise or domain framing, we could >> advocate for openness by welcoming different expertise and >> argumentation >> and making our sources/bias as evident as possible. >> >> >>> I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to >> promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have >> been programmed to be a successful academic software developer, >> because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn >> to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in >> the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may >> be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret >> service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your >> post, though. >>> You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and >> important informatics community to technical detail, when it is >> neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the >> narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to >> the point of view where they can see what technology does in the >> real world. >>> >> I offered a view point with sources. In no way the discussion >> about >> Apparent Intelligence was contained and, on the contrary, I tried >> to >> offer arguments from cognition and philosophy, beyond technical >> details, >> which have been pretty absent in the general discourse and rush >> gold of >> technoutopism / technoapocalypse, conspiracy and paranoia. Other >> sources >> could be added to enrich and inform de conversation and they would >> be >> pretty welcomed (at least from me and several members I've known > >from >> this community) >> >> Best, >> >> Offray

March 26, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by in_pharo_users＠nym.hush.com

Dear Offray, I have nothing to comment on this. --- In general I have made the observation that certain people who want to push an agenda to promote alterior motives tend to reiterate false prepositions and so false conclusions over and over. If there is an apodictic statement that contradicts their alterior motives, this people just can't help themselves but to deny truth against better knowledge ad nauseam. On 26.3.2023 at 8:34 PM, "Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas" <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > >Hi, > >Comments inlined below: > >On 22/03/23 7:34, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users wrote: >> Offray, and to all others, >> >> you are missing the issue. >> >> The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a >system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a >human. >> >> This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by >millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', >right?) >> >> ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to >convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, >chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait >pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices, >phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called. >They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that >ALL information about every single internet user in available and >is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use >this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the >useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his >internet activity. >> >> These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms >with life like names, 'pretending' to be human. >> >> These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most >social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology >to manufacture consent. >> >> The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to >manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI >chat bots, right? > >I don't think I have missed the point, as we agreed (I think) on >chatbots not being intelligent, just having such appearance. That >why >I'm calling "AI" #ApparentIntelligence (in the sense of look >alike, but >not real). Of course, something looking like a real thing without >being >the real thing can be used for manipulation since the first times >of >gossip, printing press and now automatization, with the changes in >scale/danger that such medium changes imply. > >I don't think that manufactured consent is so easy, as this very >thread >shows. What is being automated is manufactured polarization (but >humans >can do pretty well by our own on polarization). > > >> How can this be achieved? >> >> Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to >> - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then >> - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the >propaganda content, then >> - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as >something to wish for, >> - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals >of the propaganda content. >> >> Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post >follows, Offray. > >On the contrary, my post is advocating for a critical reading of >Apparent Intelligence, by reframing the terms and the acritical >technoutopic / technoapocalyptic readings/discourses that are >spreading >rapidly on the wider web, as I think that this community has shown >an >historical different position beyond/resisting hype and current >trends. >So I don't see how any of the steps you mention are "blueprint >followed" >in my post, and I think they will be difficult to locate without >specific examples. > > >> >> This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our >conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - >here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts >exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup. >> >> Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, >discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others >and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus >manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable >'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have >identified as an adversary. >> >> Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with >'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of >collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader. > >Heh, heh. On the contrary seems that the one seeing a scheme and a >enemies location/confrontation with deep plots and tactics is you. >Providing external creditable sources beyond opinion, belonging to >a >established discursive falsafiable tradition (i.e. one that you >can >criticize instead of blindly accept) is a way to enrich >discourse/argumentation beyond conspiracy theories. You could also >quote >your sources instead, which would allow the community to see where >our >positions are hold/sustained, even if we use different domain >frames, >which is better that claiming no domain or expertise in pursuit of >openness. So instead of this are my opinions without any external >source >or reference to pretend no expertise or domain framing, we could >advocate for openness by welcoming different expertise and >argumentation >and making our sources/bias as evident as possible. > > >> >> I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to >promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have >been programmed to be a successful academic software developer, >because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn >to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in >the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may >be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret >service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your >post, though. >> >> You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and >important informatics community to technical detail, when it is >neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the >narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to >the point of view where they can see what technology does in the >real world. >> >> > >I offered a view point with sources. In no way the discussion >about >Apparent Intelligence was contained and, on the contrary, I tried >to >offer arguments from cognition and philosophy, beyond technical >details, >which have been pretty absent in the general discourse and rush >gold of >technoutopism / technoapocalypse, conspiracy and paranoia. Other >sources >could be added to enrich and inform de conversation and they would >be >pretty welcomed (at least from me and several members I've known >from >this community) > >Best, > >Offray

March 26, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Hi, Comments inlined below: On 22/03/23 7:34, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users wrote: > Offray, and to all others, > > you are missing the issue. > > The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a human. > > This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', right?) > > ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices, phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called. They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that ALL information about every single internet user in available and is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his internet activity. > > These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms with life like names, 'pretending' to be human. > > These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology to manufacture consent. > > The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI chat bots, right? I don't think I have missed the point, as we agreed (I think) on chatbots not being intelligent, just having such appearance. That why I'm calling "AI" #ApparentIntelligence (in the sense of look alike, but not real). Of course, something looking like a real thing without being the real thing can be used for manipulation since the first times of gossip, printing press and now automatization, with the changes in scale/danger that such medium changes imply. I don't think that manufactured consent is so easy, as this very thread shows. What is being automated is manufactured polarization (but humans can do pretty well by our own on polarization). > How can this be achieved? > > Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to > - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then > - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the propaganda content, then > - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as something to wish for, > - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals of the propaganda content. > > Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post follows, Offray. On the contrary, my post is advocating for a critical reading of Apparent Intelligence, by reframing the terms and the acritical technoutopic / technoapocalyptic readings/discourses that are spreading rapidly on the wider web, as I think that this community has shown an historical different position beyond/resisting hype and current trends. So I don't see how any of the steps you mention are "blueprint followed" in my post, and I think they will be difficult to locate without specific examples. > > This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup. > > Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable 'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have identified as an adversary. > > Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with 'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader. Heh, heh. On the contrary seems that the one seeing a scheme and a enemies location/confrontation with deep plots and tactics is you. Providing external creditable sources beyond opinion, belonging to a established discursive falsafiable tradition (i.e. one that you can criticize instead of blindly accept) is a way to enrich discourse/argumentation beyond conspiracy theories. You could also quote your sources instead, which would allow the community to see where our positions are hold/sustained, even if we use different domain frames, which is better that claiming no domain or expertise in pursuit of openness. So instead of this are my opinions without any external source or reference to pretend no expertise or domain framing, we could advocate for openness by welcoming different expertise and argumentation and making our sources/bias as evident as possible. > > I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have been programmed to be a successful academic software developer, because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your post, though. > > You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and important informatics community to technical detail, when it is neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to the point of view where they can see what technology does in the real world. > > I offered a view point with sources. In no way the discussion about Apparent Intelligence was contained and, on the contrary, I tried to offer arguments from cognition and philosophy, beyond technical details, which have been pretty absent in the general discourse and rush gold of technoutopism / technoapocalypse, conspiracy and paranoia. Other sources could be added to enrich and inform de conversation and they would be pretty welcomed (at least from me and several members I've known from this community) Best, Offray

March 26, 2023

This week (12/2023) on the Pharo Issue Tracker. We merged >60 PRs

by Marcus Denker

We merged >60 PRs Of those just 16 for Pharo11, the rest are major cleanups/fixes/speedups in Pharo12. Pharo11 ======= - Disable ReCompactSourceCodeRule for p11 #13075 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13075 - Setting image version in the header of the image file #12954 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/12954 - Sync zinc #12824 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/12824 Bugs ==== - 12948-Broken-ast-method-on-compiled-block #13094 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13094 - Improving debug session to be able customize debug contexts model #13112 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13112 - add includes: to FinalizationRegistry. #13110 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13110 - fixes case sensitive string literal search (use Ctrl+Shift+U shortcut) #1310 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13103 - add shortcuts to string literal search, fix case insensitive search #1362 https://github.com/pharo-spec/Spec/pull/1362 - fix duplicated repos in Iceberg #13074 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13074 - Patch PNGReadWriter to allow and ignore excess chunks after IEND #13049 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13049 - 13051 improve the memory allocation of sequenceable collection runningof #13052 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13052 - Ensuring that Calypso catches any NotFound errors that could appear when a breakpoint on a test under debug doesn' exist anymore #13021 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13021 - Refactoring debugger extension system to update extensions in all debuggers dynamically, when an extension is (un)activated #481 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/481 - Fix two deprecated #asOrderedCollection sends #490 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/490 - skip testDoEvaluateDeclareGlobal for now #492 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/492 - skip another testDoEvaluateDeclareGlobal for now #493 https://github.com/pharo-spec/NewTools/pull/493 Pharo 12 ======== Major work continuesâ¦ of note are the speed improvements. SystemOrganizer now uses a dictionary and we enabled primitive 158 for string comparison, just to name two. Speed ===== - Use primitive 158 for string comparison #12878 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/12878 - Speed up FreeTypeFont>>widthOf: #13116 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13116 - Speed up in rpackage #13086 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13086 - Use dictionary in SystemOrganizer #13023 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13023 - Some various speedup #13067 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13067 - Do not fire systemClassRecategorizedActionFrom: everytime #13066 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13066 - Speedup RBBrowserEnvironment>>#classesInPackages:do: #13056 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13056 Category/Protocols Cleanup ================= - ClassOrganization>>#classify:under:suppressIfDefault: is always called with the same parameter #13082 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13082 - Rename ClassOrganization #*category* into #*protocolName* #13019 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13019 - Some cleanings of ClassDescription #13046 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13046 - Unify package unregistration #13040 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13040 Compiler ======== - Faulty compiler: new CodeError class #13029 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13029 - Code Snippets: extends tests to check notices #13115 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13115 - RBCodeSnippet format, tidify and better default mechanism #13109 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13109 - Faulty code: position fixes on some ast nodes (and various cleanup) #13098 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13098 - Compiler gets permitFaulty #13084 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13084 - Fauty code: RBParser parse only faulty code #13080 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13080 - Faulty code: keep AST and source information in faulty CompiledMethod #13087 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13087 - RFC: RBNotice to reify error and warning messages on AST nodes #13057 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13057 - Faulty code: strip OCUndeclaredVariableWarning of its reparation duties #13055 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13055 - Make unreachable statements a warning instead of an error #13050 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13050 - Compiler: stop playing notification pingpong #13047 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13047 - Faulty parser - better error position and messages #13044 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13044 - Faulty code - test Monticello #13036 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13036 - Compiler: remove getSourceFromRequestorSelection #13045 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13045 - Faulty parsing: change logic of errorBlock #13042 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13042 - Tests that CI handle properly Syntax Errors during tests #12785 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/12785 - Faulty code: CodeError are resumable #13037 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13037 - Improve faulty compilation - unify handling of undeclared variables #13007 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13007 Compiler/Tools ============= - Rubric/Calypso improve menu entries (especially browse) #13095 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13095 - Fix #13107 cannot remove used slot #13118 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13118 - RubSmalltalkEditor-remove-reference-RBParser #13091 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13091 - Calypso editor: stop inserting -> #13073 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13073 Improvements =========== - LongMessageDialogWindow wraps the text #13117 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13117 - Refactoring push up method: introduce driver #12867 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/12867 - Fix refacotring bug #13069 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13069 Bootstrap/CI/Housekeeping ========= - Add some timestamps and logs to the bootstrap #13106 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13106 - Remove travis file #13105 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13105 - Make documentation more readable on github #13093 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13093 - Synch with p11 (To get ombu fix crashing the CI) #13081 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13081 - Synch with p11 #13077 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13077 - Log the package been tested on CI. #13038 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13038 Cleanups ======== - Move machineEpsilon to Float. #13078 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13078 - 12996-Remove-ReLiteralArrayContainsSuspiciousTrueFalseOrNilRule #13092 https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/13092

March 24, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by in_pharo_users＠nym.hush.com

Dear James, anonymity may not be important to presenting these ideas in general, but I prefer to stay pseudonymous in this case. On 22.3.2023 at 4:16 PM, "James Foster via Pharo-users" <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: > >Are you willing to sign your name to this? Is anonymity important >to presenting these ideas? > >James Foster > >> On Mar 22, 2023, at 5:34 AM, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users ><pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: >> >> Offray, and to all others, >> >> you are missing the issue. >> >> The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a >system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a >human. >> >> This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by >millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', >right?) >> >> ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to >convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, >chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait >pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices, >phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called. >They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that >ALL information about every single internet user in available and >is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use >this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the >useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his >internet activity. >> >> These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms >with life like names, 'pretending' to be human. >> >> These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most >social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology >to manufacture consent. >> >> The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to >manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI >chat bots, right? >> >> How can this be achieved? >> >> Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to >> - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then >> - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the >propaganda content, then >> - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as >something to wish for, >> - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals >of the propaganda content. >> >> Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post >follows, Offray. >> >> This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our >conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - >here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts >exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup. >> >> Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, >discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others >and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus >manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable >'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have >identified as an adversary. >> >> Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with >'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of >collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader. >> >> I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to >promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have >been programmed to be a successful academic software developer, >because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn >to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in >the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may >be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret >service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your >post, though. >> >> You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and >important informatics community to technical detail, when it is >neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the >narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to >the point of view where they can see what technology does in the >real world. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21.3.2023 at 7:21 PM, "Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas" ><offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Richard. The Turing test is not a good one to test >>> intelligence and we have now just over glorified Eliza chatbots >>> that >>> appear to think and to understand but do none of them. ...

March 22, 2023

Re: Wow - Chat GPT understands Smalltalk

by James Foster

Are you willing to sign your name to this? Is anonymity important to presenting these ideas? James Foster > On Mar 22, 2023, at 5:34 AM, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> wrote: > > Offray, and to all others, > > you are missing the issue. > > The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a system, but it's ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a human. > > This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by millions of users, f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', right?) > > ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to convince the user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, chat bots are getting now equipped with life like portrait pictures, speech input and output systems with life like voices, phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being called. They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that ALL information about every single internet user in available and is being consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use this information to guide their conversational strategy, as the useful aspects of the users mindset are extracted from his internet activity. > > These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms with life like names, 'pretending' to be human. > > These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most social media users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology to manufacture consent. > > The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to manufacture consent about humans accepting being manipulated by AI chat bots, right? > > How can this be achieved? > > Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to > - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then > - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the propaganda content, then > - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as something to wish for, > - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals of the propaganda content. > > Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post follows, Offray. > > This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our conversation: the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - here informatics/computer sciences - and thus delegated to experts exclusively. We saw this in the 9/11 aftermath coverup. > > Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, discussing aspects that have allready been introduced by others and including the groups main focus 'Smalltalk', thus manufacturing consent and establishing yourself as a reliable 'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have identified as an adversary. > > Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with 'traceable AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of collaboration with AI proponents for the once critical reader. > > I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to promote the NWO AI program. I think you just 'learned' / have been programmed to be a successful academic software developer, because to be successful in academics, it is neccessary to learn to argue just like that since the downfall of academic science in the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I grant that you may be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a secret service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your post, though. > > You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and important informatics community to technical detail, when it is neccessary that academics and community members look beyond the narrow borders of their certifications and shift their thinking to the point of view where they can see what technology does in the real world. > > > > > > On 21.3.2023 at 7:21 PM, "Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas" <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with Richard. The Turing test is not a good one to test >> intelligence and we have now just over glorified Eliza chatbots >> that >> appear to think and to understand but do none of them. ...

March 22, 2023