This is a core problem of distributed systems though. Signal even cites this as their reason to not federate with anyone.

Once you get decentralization going you need everyone to stay kind of up to date or stuff will just not work.

It is not. Discord’s protocol has been tailormade to suit Discord and the developers will not give a single thought about keeping it stable because only the Discord server&client are meant to use it.

An XMPP developer would likely have been delusional about the protocol he himself developed. But at the time I can assure you XMPP was completely irrelevant. AIM/ICQ/MSN/Yahoo! and maybe IRC were the tools of the day back then.

Because of actual competition (which XMPP had absolutely no part in) multi protocol messengers had their golden age then.

No.

• I want to send messages to people who are not currently online (having a server stay online for you is a desparate hack and not a solution)
• I want to send media other than text
• I want my messages to be e2ee
• I want presence - e.g. know if someone is available, busy, away
• I want voice/video calls

and many more…

None of these were solved by IRC but by the others you mentioned.

Also Matrix can bridge to XMPP, of course you wouldn’t because nobody uses XMPP.

No. There was nothing to extend and extinguish with XMPP. It was a dead on arrival protocol that nobody ever used seriously. I’ve been to the internet at that time and what people actually used was: AIM, ICQ, MSN and possibly even Yahoo!. (IRC for the nerds and Counter-Strike)

It was exactly the other way around. Nobody ever used XMPP, then Google opened federation on their first chat and suddenly someone was actually reachable via XMPP which was a cool thing for some nerds that were into XML then, but when Google noticed that it only imports problems with nothing to gain from the XMPP network they just shut it off.

At the time nobody cared because the people accidentally using XMPP didn’t give a shit about it because they used Google not XMPP in the first place.

The analogy is that you buy a car (because if it breaks, the car and your entertainment stuff, you will buy a new one to replace it, you will also carry all maintenance) but suddenly you can’t drive backwards anymore because the manufacturer decided retroactively that you should pay extra for that (possibly in a subscription).

I would say it is your good right then to make your car drive backwards regardless of what it may take.

It doesn’t or do you have serious applications for self-modifying code?

Being close (and “sometimes” precise) to the intended meaning is an equally useless metric to measure performance.

Depending on what you allow for “well close enough I think” asking ChatGPT to tell a story without any reading of fMRI would get you to these results. Especially if you know beforehand it’s gonna be a story told.

It’s the other way round. Code is being written to fit how a specific machine works. This is what makes Assembly so hard.

Also there is by design no understanding required, a machine doesn’t “get” what you are trying to do it just does what is there.

If you want a machine to understand what specific code does and modify that for another machine that is extremely hard because the machine would need to understand the semantics of the operation. It would need to “get” what you were doing which isn’t happening.

That game would still not work because there is a ton of hidden state in all but the simplest computer games that you cannot tell from just playing through the game normally.

An AI could probably reinvent flappy birds because there is no more depth than what is currently on screen but that’s about it.

No. Programs cannot reprogram themselves in a useful way and are very very far from it.

Sure but until I see such a thing I chose not to believe in fairy tales.

Decompiling arbitrary architecture machine code is quite a few levels above everything I’ve seen so far which is generally pretty basic pattern recognition paired with statistics and training reinforcement.

I’d argue decompiling arbitrary machine code into either another machine code or legible higher level code is in a whol other league than what AO has proven to be capable of.

Especially because with this being 90% accurate is useless.

About half the time, the text closely – and sometimes precisely – matched the intended meanings of the original words.

Don’t be surprised but about half of the time I can predict the result of a coin flip.

I’m not saying it’s not interesting but needing custom training and an fMRI is not “an AI can read minds”

It can see if patterns it saw previously reappear in a heavily time delayed fMRI. Looking for patterns you already know isn’t such an impressive feat Computers have done this for ages now.

It litterally can’t read minds.

Which is exactly the problem people think has been solved but isn’t anywhere near being solved. It cannot comprehend semantics, the meaning of things is completely beyond it and all other AIs.

Unfortunately saying I made a thing that creates vaguely human looking speech with little content isn’t astonishing to most people hence they are looking for something useful this breakthrough machine must be able to do and then they don’t find anything leading to these articles.

Might be true for you but most people do have a concept of true and false and don’t just dream up stuff to say.

A fancy way to say do nothing is not the same as translating back and forth. Example: Show me the intermediate translation.

Also we live in a 64bit world now old man

From the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though

A compiler and an assembler do wildly different things though. An assembler simply replaces mnemonics while a compiler transfers instructions to a whole other language.

This won’t happen in our lifetime. Not only because this is more complex than rambling vaguely correlated human speech while hallucinating half the time.