|
What really surprised me (well, I was hopeful, it's a fault of mine) was that there was no conversation. It was basically just a bunch of the same questions Monster and Indeed will ask, but in "dialog" form. WTF? That's not AI.
Latest Article - Web Frameworks - A Solution Looking for a Problem?
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: That's not AI. Yes but it is a recruiter. Please asses the AIs capability in comparison to the human equivalent.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: WTF? That's not AI.
Au contraire, if you look at the first chatbot of them all:
Quote: ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program created from 1964 to 1966[1] at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory by Joseph Weizenbaum.[
ELIZA[^]
So the recruiters have cought up to the level of 1966, so what?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
It's never AI, it's always ML.
I wouldn't be surprised if this bot actually analyzed 100s of "conversations" with recruiters and that's just what they do
Although you'd at least expect something like "I do not understand, can you please repeat that?" or "Let's stay on topic, okay?"
It's like "I'm really fast at math."
"Ok, so what's 234 x 1242?"
"5."
"That's not even close!"
"No, but it was fast."
It's "AI", just not very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did they ask you to click on all image segments with store fronts to prove that you are human? Maybe a recrutee AI bot will be the next big thing.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I should also mention I’m an artificially intelligent Recruiter
"Let me talk to a real person. Don't you have some patches you need to go install?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a bunch of code for collecting response to a predefined set of questions. And they call it AI.
That "Interesting!" response was hilarious though!
You have just been Sharapova'd.
|
|
|
|
|
Eliza 2.0[^]
I thought we finally had gotten over that long ago,
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
A real Dutch treat
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how nowadays everything which replies back to you is called AI. Guess is a sort of tendence of these days. Once AI will be again boring then they will swap on the new trend.
"Hey have you seen this vending machine?", "Yeah, is a common vending machine; so what?" "No, it's powered with AI". Oh well, that changes everything I presume.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm GOD!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm interested to hear if Wendy follows up with you, based on your answers.
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy! How could you do this to me! I thought we had a special relationship!
73
|
|
|
|
|
So, Wendy and Wade can be hacked then ... sending you to the "No" outbox.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 7-Mar-19 19:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
From Code Complete (2nd ed)- Steve McConnell[^]
* Steve McConnell: "In software, consultants sometimes tell you to buy into certain software-development methods to the exclusion of other methods. That's unfortunate because if you buy into any single methodology 100 percent, you'll see the whole world in terms of that methodology. In some instances, you'll miss opportunities to use other methods better suited to your current problem. The toolbox metaphor helps to keep all the methods, techniques, and tips in perspective--ready for use when appropriate."
* This quote is from 2nd ed but the 1st ed (1993) also has this same paragraph, just slightly changed for style.
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to try and make a parallel with marriage, but ...
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: I wanted to try and make a parallel with marriage, but ...
That's because marriage is an anti-pattern. So this sentence, applicable to software consulting:
Quote: That's unfortunate because if you buy into any single methodology 100 percent, you'll see the whole world in terms of that methodology.
for marriage, would read:
Quote: That's unfortunate because if you buy into any single methodology 100 percent, you'll see the whole world in terms of OTHER METHODOLOGIES.
Latest Article - Web Frameworks - A Solution Looking for a Problem?
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: if you buy into any single methodology 100 percent,
So I'm curious. How would you define "methodology"? What common methodologies exist? Are we talking BS like the non-existent waterfall methodology which was coined as a joke to which we now have Agile and flavors like TDD, Code First, Schema First, etc.?
Because none of those methodologies have any real substance to them other than "tailor it to your needs" which is, of course, the ultimate methodology. So it's not a "toolbox metaphor", sadly, it's another methodology. The "toolbox methodology."
Apologies if I sound snarky, I don't mean to, I just get frustrated with things that are common sense but have to be couched in buzzwords for management to adopt. Oops. Snarky again.
Latest Article - Web Frameworks - A Solution Looking for a Problem?
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
I was somehow reading it as "the JavaScript method" and "the C# method" and "the [insert language/DB/library/framework] method", so if you decide to go full C# you'll never think of using JavaScript (which may fit some problem better than C# because of its dynamic nature).
Of course if you keep your options open like that you'll still need knowledge about all those options and that's difficult...
Perhaps Python would be better at solving my current problem, but I don't know anything about Python and getting a Python programmer on board would be very impractical to say the least.
That's my problem with this "toolbox" thing anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking of this type of definition of methodology (as described by a dictionary):
wordnik dictionary: A body of practices, procedures, and rules used by those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry; a set of working methods
I think McConnell's point is that when you lock into things so strongly -- simply because someone has said it is the correct way and simply because that someone seems to have authority -- then you cut yourself off from other solutions because you've narrowed your focus.
Of course this is difficult because if you don't narrow your focus, you end up swallowing the ocean and not having any type of process (guiding methodology) at all and that is a failure too.
I just find that people in IT (and maybe all endeavors) point at a thing and say, "that is how it is done" and then they are done.
But as implementors we often find that there are other challenges those methodologies do not and cannot address and that is when you have to open your eyes to reality.
modified 5-Mar-19 16:36pm.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: But as implementors we often find that there are other challenges those methodologies do not and cannot address and that is when you have to open your eyes to reality. Having spent the best part of the last two years maintaining and debugging code that was written over the past 10 years by geniuses(I use the word both in the sense of admiration as well as with gritted teeth) the one thing I have taken away from my experience is be consistent and try not to be too clever when dealing with edge cases.
Easier said than done I realise.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|