danwinslow

The Altirra debugger seems so much better than anything you could run from within the atari...if you have that available why would you want to use either of these native debuggers?

I never played this game, at all, on any platform. Sounds like maybe I should try it.

Break key exits will continue to have th eproblem, though. Don't know if you can trap that in TB or not.

? Did this actually get made?

It's the tragedy of humanity - we are children playing in a room full of easily assembled deadly toys.

This is exactly the problem, and not the solution. This is a very real and existential threat. But then again, we seem to be collecting those. Jackpot!

Well, it's by design of the folks who designed Action!, obviously, and intended for use with Action! programs. Is it a good idea for Action? Sort of, I guess, as said it's kind of a semi-dangerous way to skip having to specify the channel all the time. Drac030 seems to be answering the question "Was this by the design of Atari itself?" and he's right, the answer there is no.

Well, except that doesn't seem to have any effect on him.

This is unfortunately true. Him posting a bit hurts nothing, but due to the nature of people it inevitably snags someone into trying to help him, or else telling him to hush up, or both, and then we all have the same threads over and over. What he really wants is attention. At any rate, I think it's time we consider limiting his ability to post, however that is done here.

I think the A8 just isn't suitable for the advanced stuff you are trying to do. I think you should consider dropping it as a target, focusing your energy and talent on targets that can support it.

@OP: You mean the 'we hooked an Atari up to some web site' story? Already happened.

That's a 'break on write' command to catch writes to $2F0, right?

Is this a new problem since you 'cleaned up' your code or did it always not appear?

We all know what Harry's deal is. If you want to help, just help. Criticism, even helpful, is pointless.

Uh huh. Don't feed.

Shtetl optimized! Great blog, +1. Been following the 'quantum wormhole in the lab' stuff there and on Not Even Wrong. The Eugene thing, though, seems really incapable and obvious, like Eliza level. Is ChatGPT as easy to fool? Can't get to it at work but I'll try later at home.

Hmm, I thought it had been beat by now. So, you're saying that given a normal human without prior knowledge that they were conversing with a chatbot, they would be sure to notice it's not an actual human within a short time? Your linkage does confirm what you say...although it's from 2022. Yeah, it's a fuzzy line to draw...in any case it's kind of an empty test because it's so dependent on uncontrollable variables. But still, I think chat GPT could come close.

yah, 'intelligence' is a done deal, and I would guess that ChatGPT easily passes a Turing test, at least in its original meaning. Consciousness, now...that's a whole other story.

All of it besides peripherals, probably. It's FPGA, so you load 'circuits and silicon as software' into it. New color modes on an otherwise accurate emulation would be awesome, and make me want to play. Would need somepOS pathcing obviously, but I bet we could squeeze in a few new color modes without too much disruption.

(in my opinion) ChatGPT is a synthesis engine for written material and discussion...it is not doing any reasoning on it own in any way we would recognize. It doesn't actually create, either...even when it's written a poem or a song or a paper that seems pretty good, it's just a kind of extremely deep summation of everything similar it's been trained on for the subject, with some random rolls thrown in probably. We are really reading our own writings, and we are really conversing with ourselves. There's no separate viewpoint, no point of separate self. Is it useful? Yeah, probably. It is better? No. Many things we have created are useful, but not better.

Yes

bandcamp eh? Nice touch.

yeah. Well, from the 2 post count and the dope related name I'm guessing that we won't hear much direct conversation from OP.

Have 0 experience with chatGPT, but I really do think foft has a point. Think about it - if chatGPT had been asked to 'write an atari basic program to communicate with itself', then it could appear as above, sort of a close-but-not-quite-right deal. ChatGPT, as I understand, was trained on huge amounts of stuff on the internet. Given the way that works, you kind of expect that it would have some dialect drift since it's seen hundreds of BASIC variants, and what you would get back out is sort of an averaged mish-mash syntactically. That said, I find it hard to believe that it would be able to a-priori write the above details about communication with itself using the fujiNet api and the details of atari SIO. Right now I lean towards somebody just screwing with us. I don't think chatGPT actually reasons on it's own much, it's just an extremely well trained and sophisticated natural language machine learning model.

Interesting. So when he removed the brackets he got a pointer to location 0? Surprised he didn't crash. Thanks for the explanation.