Not to tell you how to comment, but those that don't seek answers with an open mind will often fulfill their own disillusion without your help at all. Which is to say: if the person you're responding to can't intrinsically understand what would be good about having a 'pair programmer AI' cleaning up your graph as you code it, based on things it learned about how you code, then that person is probably not going to benefit from whatever you can explain to them. If they don't have the problem, then their understanding of it will be just as academic as their naysaying of it. And, all things being equal, why bother trying to make someone understand something they've already represented a lack of utility for?
Not to tell you how to comment, but those who don't seek answers will not realize their dreams. Their understanding will be an academic projection of the future and they will guard themselves from truth. If people don't intrinsically understand you, maybe you need to go in to more detail so your explanation isn't so abstract.
Ergo, vis-a-vi have you ever actually tried making a graph that is rearranging itself while you're using it?
Also what is the "AI" doing that can't be done with a normal algorithm? Positioning nodes in a graph would just be determining their x and y positions. How much time have you spent working with node graphs? Arranging the nodes is easier than arranging your keyboard and mouse, it's trivial.
> If people don't intrinsically understand you, maybe you need to go in to more detail so your explanation isn't so abstract.
People did; you didn't.
> Ergo, vis-a-vi have you ever actually tried making a graph that is rearranging itself while you're using it?
No one said anything about "while you're using it". Linters don't fuck up your text as you type it. It's a utility like anything else. And, YES, I have built a working version of one. It doesn't use machine learning/tensors at all, and it's a fucking nightmare to develop. I can see exactly where those things would help me. It's too abstract, to you, to understand? That's a shame! But other people seem to get it, so if you are having trouble, maybe try approaching your ignorance with openness and curiosity instead of cynicism and trivialization ('uncross some lines').
If you want to know how much time I've spent working on node edge graphs, you wouldn't believe me. But I can at least point you to the start of the web-component version I'm porting: https://github.com/catapart/Magnit.NodeGraph
It's probably two years out of date at this point, as I've been integrating some of the algorithms for the specific need I have for these graphs (interactive dialog), but even from that anemic demo you can see that I know how to build the damn things. Again, you're trivializing for...some reason? I don't know. You seem to think you know more about me on this, and that's fine, but you don't really ever demonstrate that so I can't see your commentary as anything other than intransigent ignorance. Which was obvious from your first response, which is why this is my first (and last) direct response to you.
I hope you feel better about whatever it is that is causing you to have this reaction to a pretty obvious benefit that you, for whatever reason, seem too stubborn to engage with.
No one said anything about "while you're using it".
Your comment: cleaning up your graph as you code it,
I have built a working version of one. It doesn't use machine learning/tensors at all
Your comment: we could employ tensor-based learning methodology, like ChatGPT uses
How would that work on a technical level?
You keep throwing around insults like:
those that don't seek answers with an open mind will often fulfill their own disillusion
if the person you're responding to can't intrinsically understand what would be good
It's too abstract, to you, to understand? That's a shame!
But you seem to be melting down instead of answering the most basic questions about what you're talking about. How and why would you use "tensor-based learning" to layout a graph?
Again, you're trivializing for...some reason?
Because graph layout features were invented essentially right after people started using node graphs. If a node to the right of another node is connected to an input to the left and the node to the left is connected to the input on the right, their wires will cross.
so I can't see your commentary as anything other than intransigent ignorance
I asked the most basic follow up question to what you said and you think you're being persecuted. Where does the expectation come from to make some sort of wild claim and have no one at least ask how it's supposed to work?
What is all this stuff about being "stubborn" and "closed minded" when you haven't explained anything? Just back up what you're saying somehow.
whatever it is that is causing you to have this reaction
