Similarly, say, for video editors, using AI to more intelligently rotoscope (especially with alpha blending in the presence of motion blur - practically impossible to do it manually), would be a great use of AI, removing the non-creative tedium of the process.

It's not clear where the line is though. I was quite impressed with Corridor Crew's (albeit NVidia+Puget-sponsored) video [1] where they photographed dolls, motion-captured human actors moving like the dolls, and transferred the skeletal animation and facial expressions to those dolls using GenAI. Some of it required nontrivial transformative code to accommodate a skeleton to a toy's body type. There's a massive amount of tedium being removed from the creative process by GenAI without sacrificing the core human creative contribution. This feels like it should be allowed -- I think we should attempt to draw clearer lines where there are clearly efficiency gains to be had to have less "creative" uses be more socially acceptable.

[1]: https://youtu.be/DSRrSO7QhXY

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45697450

Points: 124

# Comments: 54

Most functional-inspired languages would just have a single `f: T -> Result` interface, which supports both (1) a specific error type `E`, which can also be an uninhabited type (e.g. never type) for an infallible operation, and (2) where `U` can be the unit type if the function doesn't return anything on success. That's about as generic as one can get with a single "interface" type.

[1]: https://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/javadoc...

`for path in paths`

should be

`for (const path of paths)`

JS will immediately error on the lack of parens, but the `in` vs `of` iterates over indexes, not values, and those indexes are unfortunately converted to strings (since `for-in` is object field-name iteration). So even TypeScript would not have caught it when the (stringified) index is used as the first argument of `fs.watch()`.

But I digress.

- You want to compare two products: in this case 6x9 and 7x8.

- And in each product, if you add the two numbers together, you get the same result. In this case, 6+9 = 7+8.

Then the product will be larger for the pair of numbers that are closer together. So 7x8 > 6x9. That might help you remember which is 56 and which is 54.

You typically see this in a word problem where you are given a fixed amount of fence and you have to enclose the largest rectangular area. The answer is to use a square area (two sides being equal). If the problem has constraints that prevent the sides from being equal, then you pick the length and width to be as close to each other as possible.

In case you want to transfer the geometric intuition to an algebraic proof: If the sum of the two side lengths is 2m, then the two side lengths can be written as (m+n) and (m-n) for some positive n. If you multiply the two, you get (m+n)(m-n) = m²-n². To maximize the product, you need n to be as close to 0 as possible - i.e. for both sides to be as close to each other as possible.

And your answer for Python is not quite correct: "" is falsy in Python, and both of the last two when translated to Python give "null".