O rly?

K

This is clearly a waste of time.

I have to give credit where credits due, I appreciate you fast forwarding the conversation. Where you start to lose me is where you say who gives a shit about what data structure you use. Is it not important to use efficient filtering algorithms so data is streamed quickly? Just because you would not think to present it that way does not mean another human would not. I’m not going to call you an ad hominem, I am just literally confused at what your point is, and why you can’t just acknowledge the work by humans that was clearly out into this.

Do you need me to link you to the specific aspects of the algorithm diagrammed above? Are you really that lazy that you can’t look over it yourself?

Lol, no. You are the supposed algorithm expert, so tell me how what I saw in the code is wrong. It looks right to me, so unless you explain what its missing, then you will the one taking the L and moving on. ✌️

Ok, I checked it. Looks legit. Now what?

I’m done with this circular argument. Let me know when you want to actually prove you know what the fuck you’re talking about by getting into the specifics of the mechanics of the diagram that are illogical, in detail as opposed to vague generalities. Why would someone not apply a bloom filter to filter out posts you’ve already seen? Why would you not use connecting lines to show the aspects that are impacted by the user? You continue to refuse to get specific, and just keep going back to “trust me bro”. If that’s all you plan on returning to, let me know so I can stop wasting my time here.

Ok, your points are all 100% right and I’m too much of a dumb fuck pleb on the subject to argue. Your dick is made of gold, and I will suck it on cue for you, whenever you want.

Now go ahead and explain how I, or you, or anyone else, could prove that this is not implemented as described.

Lol, just keep dodging the questions, mr expert senior dev. Really convincing me of your expertise. 💩

How can I prove it, when I don’t have access to the code? Please, tell me how I would prove it, specifically.

All I am literally asking is “why doesn’t this make sense”, and your response is “well you see, I’m an expert, so trust me bro”. Fuck off.

Ah yes, I’m sure once I understand how something irrelevant to this diagrams functionality works, I will then see why you’re right… I will take your refusal to simply define the thing you are critiquing and explain it a bit more as a concession that you’re actually full of shit.

Do me a favor here, as a self proclaimed expert. Define a bloom filter, and then explain to me, a stupid pleb, why it would not work in this context. Cause from everything I have read on them, the description in this diagram is literally what it is used for.

Are you really asking me to take a video of me using the app for an extended period of time and analyzing the results to determine if it lines up with the various details of the algorithm outlined above? Cause I’m not really sure how else I would prove that its actually implemented as described.

I have not flipped the question, I am just genuinely curious of the details you find hard to believe here. It all seems quite straight forward and understandable to me. Complex, sure, but again, they have done a lot of impressive work already, so it’s not outside the realm of possibility that it is implemented as described. Or at the very least, that’s what they’re working towards. I would love to hear you, a self proclaimed expert on the subject, explain the details that don’t work, other than “I tried and its hard”.

I just explained how the things you claim don’t make sense, do in fact make sense. Saying “this does not make sense” implies you don’t understand it. I have seen plenty of AI slop, and this is not it.

You didn’t use the term “bloom filter”, the diagram did. I know what it is, and it makes perfect sense in the context, so it’s really weird that you would claim it doesn’t. The fancy words I was referring to was “predicate function” and “asymmetrical”. Both are jargon words/phrases that don’t add anything to your statement as far as illuminating your point, but make you sound smart.

The thing to me that is not really amusing at all, but very annoying, is when someone has experience in a technical field, but then think that experience makes them an expert in every other field that might be tangentially related, and uses that assumption to pedantically (and often erroneously) dissect and dismiss the work of others.

Saying you tried something simpler and it was hard is not proof that this implementation is a fraud. If anything, it just makes you look less credible yourself. If you have specific aspects you can point to that are impractical, and the technical reasons they wouldn’t work, feel free, but it’s not a dodge to say that the diagram makes sense and this team had done a lot of impressive work already.

How do you know it’s not?

K

Seriously though, it’s literally already implemented. Might be too complex for you to implement, but apparently not for them.