AI fails

[PurplePenguin]

I don't think I've ridiculed your ability to do coding stuff via without learning to do coding (if that's what you are doing), but maybe even taking that as an example of what it does well, what happens when humans don't understand how to do coding, because they've outsourced it all to AI? But I agree, it is extraordinary that you can do that.

There are others more qualified than me to comment, but the basic progression of programming is as follows:

Machine code - assembly language - high level languages - AI.

The widespread use of high level languages prior to AI, did not make you concerned about people's ability to use assembly.

 

[briantrumpet]

There are others more qualified than me to comment, but the basic progression of programming is as follows:

Machine code - assembly language - high level languages - AI.

The widespread use of high level languages prior to AI, did not make you concerned about people's ability to use assembly.

And there are others more qualified than me to comment too. FWIW, the numbers studying Computer Science at uni are declining rapidly, so there will (I guess) be even fewer people who understand what's going on.

 

[Psamathe]

When cameras started to be a big thing on phones, I ridiculed the whole concept. A friend thought it was a wonderful idea, so easy to take photos. My attitude was who the hell wants to be taking loads of photos? Then I start to see facebook posts of people's breakfasts. And I realise that I am the one out of sync with the world.

I've never quite understood the cameras in smartphones. I might use mine to scan a document or maybe photograph a delivered damaged box.

But for photography I was brought up to use lens caps to protect my camera lenses. That was in addition to the UV filter used only for additional protection.

So the idea of an exposed camera lens bouncing around with whatever debris, keys, fingers, etc. in a pocket just seems very very wrong.

And the lens and sensor sizes are terrible (disastrous for collecting adequate light, etc.)

 

[briantrumpet]

I've never quite understood the cameras in smartphones. I might use mine to scan a document or maybe photograph a delivered damaged box.

But for photography I was brought up to use lens caps to protect my camera lenses. That was in addition to the UV filter used only for additional protection.

So the idea of an exposed camera lens bouncing around with whatever debris, keys, fingers, etc. in a pocket just seems very very wrong.

And the lens and sensor sizes are terrible (disastrous for collecting adequate light, etc.)

You can spend several £100s more and get a better camera in a phone, or you can spend a few £100 and have a much better camera than you could ever squeeze in a phone case.

 

[Pblakeney]

I've never quite understood the cameras in smartphones. I might use mine to scan a document or maybe photograph a delivered damaged box.

But for photography I was brought up to use lens caps to protect my camera lenses. That was in addition to the UV filter used only for additional protection.

So the idea of an exposed camera lens bouncing around with whatever debris, keys, fingers, etc. in a pocket just seems very very wrong.

And the lens and sensor sizes are terrible (disastrous for collecting adequate light, etc.)

All true but they do take adequate photos, and infinitely better photos than a camera you don't have with you.
They also appear to be very scratch resistant. Also FWIW, I've never used a UV filter for any purpose.

 

[briantrumpet]

All true but they do take adequate photos, and infinitely better photos than a camera you don't have with you.
They also appear to be very scratch resistant. Also FWIW, I've never used a UV filter for any purpose.

Agreed. Though I did have a UV-A filter on my old OM1 50mm lens (c.1981)

 

[Psamathe]

All true but they do take adequate photos, and infinitely better photos than a camera you don't have with you.
They also appear to be very scratch resistant. Also FWIW, I've never used a UV filter for any purpose.

When I first started it was UV, then "Skylight" became the standard protection but these days it seems UV.

I still buy UV filters for protection. Brought a new lens last year and filter for protection was shockingly expensive (but so was the lens).

 

[Pblakeney]

When I first started it was UV, then "Skylight" became the standard protection but these days it seems UV.

I still buy UV filters for protection. Brought a new lens last year and filter for protection was shockingly expensive (but so was the lens).

Meh. I've never scratched a lens. Just seems an unnecessary expense.
Now that I've said that though...

 

[briantrumpet]

Meh. I've never scratched a lens. Just seems an unnecessary expense.
Now that I've said that though...

I seem to remember the OM one was peanuts, relatively. The OMS-TG7 has one (not UV) as part of the waterproof system.

 

[briantrumpet]

Oops. And that's with mass theft of intellectual property.