Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Search - "complexities"
-
Manager : Developers are always over optimistic.
Dev : this task will take 4 days.
Manager : can't you complete it in 45 minutes? What are the complexities involved?
Dev : okay. I can. Thinks ** I'm a ninja developer** and I can complete this.
*** finishes it in 4 days***
Manager : That's what I said. Developers are always over optimistic.
Developer : -_-3 -
POSTMORTEM
"4096 bit ~ 96 hours is what he said.
IDK why, but when he took the challenge, he posted that it'd take 36 hours"
As @cbsa wrote, and nitwhiz wrote "but the statement was that op's i3 did it in 11 hours. So there must be a result already, which can be verified?"
I added time because I was in the middle of a port involving ArbFloat so I could get arbitrary precision. I had a crude desmos graph doing projections on what I'd already factored in order to get an idea of how long it'd take to do larger
bit lengths
@p100sch speculated on the walked back time, and overstating the rig capabilities. Instead I spent a lot of time trying to get it 'just-so'.
Worse, because I had to resort to "Decimal" in python (and am currently experimenting with the same in Julia), both of which are immutable types, the GC was taking > 25% of the cpu time.
Performancewise, the numbers I cited in the actual thread, as of this time:
largest product factored was 32bit, 1855526741 * 2163967087, took 1116.111s in python.
Julia build used a slightly different method, & managed to factor a 27 bit number, 103147223 * 88789957 in 20.9s,
but this wasn't typical.
What surprised me was the variability. One bit length could take 100s or a couple thousand seconds even, and a product that was 1-2 bits longer could return a result in under a minute, sometimes in seconds.
This started cropping up, ironically, right after I posted the thread, whats a man to do?
So I started trying a bunch of things, some of which worked. Shameless as I am, I accepted the challenge. Things weren't perfect but it was going well enough. At that point I hadn't slept in 30~ hours so when I thought I had it I let it run and went to bed. 5 AM comes, I check the program. Still calculating, and way overshot. Fuuuuuuccc...
So here we are now and it's say to safe the worlds not gonna burn if I explain it seeing as it doesn't work, or at least only some of the time.
Others people, much smarter than me, mentioned it may be a means of finding more secure pairs, and maybe so, I'm not familiar enough to know.
For everyone that followed, commented, those who contributed, even the doubters who kept a sanity check on this without whom this would have been an even bigger embarassement, and the people with their pins and tactical dots, thanks.
So here it is.
A few assumptions first.
Assuming p = the product,
a = some prime,
b = another prime,
and r = a/b (where a is smaller than b)
w = 1/sqrt(p)
(also experimented with w = 1/sqrt(p)*2 but I kept overshooting my a very small margin)
x = a/p
y = b/p
1. for every two numbers, there is a ratio (r) that you can search for among the decimals, starting at 1.0, counting down. You can use this to find the original factors e.x. p*r=n, p/n=m (assuming the product has only two factors), instead of having to do a sieve.
2. You don't need the first number you find to be the precise value of a factor (we're doing floating point math), a large subset of decimal values for the value of a or b will naturally 'fall' into the value of a (or b) + some fractional number, which is lost. Some of you will object, "But if thats wrong, your result will be wrong!" but hear me out.
3. You round for the first factor 'found', and from there, you take the result and do p/a to get b. If 'a' is actually a factor of p, then mod(b, 1) == 0, and then naturally, a*b SHOULD equal p.
If not, you throw out both numbers, rinse and repeat.
Now I knew this this could be faster. Realized the finer the representation, the less important the fractional digits further right in the number were, it was just a matter of how much precision I could AFFORD to lose and still get an accurate result for r*p=a.
Fast forward, lot of experimentation, was hitting a lot of worst case time complexities, where the most significant digits had a bunch of zeroes in front of them so starting at 1.0 was a no go in many situations. Started looking and realized
I didn't NEED the ratio of a/b, I just needed the ratio of a to p.
Intuitively it made sense, but starting at 1.0 was blowing up the calculation time, and this made it so much worse.
I realized if I could start at r=1/sqrt(p) instead, and that because of certain properties, the fractional result of this, r, would ALWAYS be 1. close to one of the factors fractional value of n/p, and 2. it looked like it was guaranteed that r=1/sqrt(p) would ALWAYS be less than at least one of the primes, putting a bound on worst case.
The final result in executable pseudo code (python lol) looks something like the above variables plus
while w >= 0.0:
if (p / round(w*p)) % 1 == 0:
x = round(w*p)
y = p / round(w*p)
if x*y == p:
print("factors found!")
print(x)
print(y)
break
w = w + i
Still working but if anyone sees obvious problems I'd LOVE to hear about it.38 -
TLDR; Wrote an awesome piece of code, but there's no one capable of understanding how hard it is.
I spent an entire night building an insanely complicated automation script, that picks out certain configuration files (in javascript fml), does some crazy parsing to pick out strings, passes them into a free translation API, translates them, and does more insane parsing to insert those strings as javascript objects.
Spent 3 hours on the bloody parsing algorithm alone.
Manager: Oh this language is really nice. Good of you to discover it can do that.
I didn't "DISCOVER" it ffs! Its a product of my head! I built the damn algo from scratch.
Seriously, screw non devs who trivialize the complexities of writing a good program. Its NOT as simple as opening notepad and typing in
import {insanelyComplexSolution} from 'daveOnTheInternet'3 -
1. Ability to freeze time... (except for internet & computer speed). Too many ideas, not enough hours in a day. Sleep should be declared optional as well.
2. Ability to not eat/drink at all, or eat/drink in copious quantities without negative effects. I enjoy a cognac, pizza & chocolate binge more than nausea, upwards BMI creep and hangovers.
3. True Virtual Reality. None of this headset crap, but immersiveness rivaling reality itself, with voice-controlled AI-assisted interfaces to "program" anything by simply describing it, iterating over details to add increasing complexities. Not even for porn reasons... my head just overflows with creative ideas for "holonovels" and interactive worldbuilding, but I don't have the patience nor artistic skills for game development.3 -
Usually I develop in python, mongo, cordova and node. Few days back I installed Windows on my laptop cause I needed to use the Visual Studio for a specific task. Then I thought that if I can setup the python, mongo, cordova and node stack on Windows then I don't need to switch between Linux and Windows frequently. And that was a horrible decision.
It took almost 8-10 hours to setup that shit, and still I couldn't make it work. There are so much complexities and those do not make any fucking sense! I mean why the hell I need to add the python path to the environment variables, and then again add the pip path separately. Then mongodb can not autostart. And finally I needed to make and build a package, and that waa the moment when I just scrapped it.
It takes me 2-3 hours to setup a fresh Linux box (which supports apt) including the OS installation. Same for the osX. I still wonder that why Microsoft does this! If Windows is for non-dev and non-tech people then why don't they release a Windows developer edition? Developing anything except ASP.NET and Java in Windows is a fucking nightmare for me!11 -
Full stack developer.
I know what it's supposed to mean, but I feel like it gives discredit to the devs who perfect their area (frontend, backend, db, infrastructure). It's, to me, like calling myself a chef because I can cook dinner..
The depth, analysis and customization of the domain to shape an api to a website is never appreciated. The finicle tweaks on the frontend to make those final touches. Then comes a brat who say they are full stack, and can do all those things. Bullshit. 99.9% of them have never done anything but move data through layers and present it.
Throw these wannabes an enterprise system with monoliths and microservices willy nelly, orchestrate that shit with a vertical slice nginx ssi with disaster recovery, horizontal scaling, domain modeling, version management, a busy little bus and events flowing all decimal points of 2pi. Then, if you fully master everything going on there, I believe you are full stack.
Otherwise you just scraped the surface of what complexities software development is about. Everyone who can read a tutorial can scrape together an "in-out" website. But if your db is looking the same as your api, your highest complexity is the alignment of an infobox, I will laugh loud at your full stack.
And if you told me in an interview that you are full stack, you'd better have 10+ years experience and a good list of failed and successful projects before I'd let you stay the next two minutes..1 -
The company considers the project manager I work with to be the best. After working with him, I consider him to be everything that is wrong with project management.
This PM injects himself into everything and has a way of completely over-complicating the smallest of things. I will give an example:
We needed to receive around 1000 rows of data from our vendor, process each row, and host an endpoint with the data in json. This was a pretty simple task until the PM got involved and over complicated the shit out of it. He asks me what file format I need to receive the data. I say it doesnt really matter, if the vendor has the data in Excel, I can use that. After an hour long conversation about his concerns using Excel he decides CSV is better. I tell him not a problem for me, CSV works just as good. The PM then has multiple conversations with the Vendor about the specific format he wants it in. Everything seems good. The he calls me and asks how am I going to host the JSON endpoints. I tell him because its static data, I was probably going to simply convert each record into its own file and use `nginx`. He is concerned about how I would process each record into its own file. I then suggest I could use a database that stores the data and have an API endpoint that will retrieve and convert into JSON. He is concerned about the complexities of adding a database and unnecessary overhead of re-processing records every time someone hits the endpoint. No decision is made and two hours are wasted. Next day he tells me he figured out a solution, we should process each record into its own JSON file and host with `nginx`. Literally the first thing I said. I tell him great, I will do that.
Fast forward a few days and its time to receive the payload of 1000 records from the Vendor. I receive the file open it up. While they sent it in CSV format the headers and column order are different. I quietly without telling the PM, adjust my code to fit what I received, ran my unit test to make sure it processed correctly, and outputted each record into its own json file. Job is now done and the project manager gets credit for getting everything to work on the first try.
This is absolutely ridiculous, the PM has an absurd 120 hours to this task! Because of all the meetings, constant interruptions, and changing of his mind, I have 35 hours to this task. In reality the actual time I spent writing code was probably 2-3 hours and all the rest was dealing with this PM's meetings and questions and indecisiveness. From a higher level, he appears to be a great PM because of all the hours he logs but in reality he takes the easiest of tasks and turns them into a nightmare. This project could have easily been worked out between me and vendor in a 30 min conversation but this PM makes it his business to insert himself into everything. And then he has the nerve to complain that he is so overwhelmed with all the stuff going on. It drives me crazy because this inefficacy and unwanted help makes everything he touches turn into a logistical nightmare but yet he is viewed as one of the companies top Project Managers.3 -
Sorry, long since my last post...
I have quit my job recently at DERP & CO.. The level of anxiety was already somewhat of medical severity.
For months I had been in a project that not only did not progress, but that it was getting worst day by day.
A bit of Context
November: "Dev, junior anon needs you to help him on the SHIT project because they are running out of time, it is mainly doing unit tests."
Well, the code was a mess, there was a LOT of copy paste and it was all bad quality (we talk about methods with complexities between 80 and 120 according to SONAR QUBE).
Dev: "Anon, you know this is wrong, right?"
Anon: "Why? it works"
Dev: after long explanation.
Anon: "Oh well, yes, from now on I will take it into account." And he did it / try his best.
Dev does the unit tests and do extra work outside of the reach of the sprint (y than i mean work after hours, classic) and alerts the boss of the mess.
December: After a project of approximately 6 or 8 months of development, the boss discovers that the junior anon have been doing everything wrong and/or with poor quality (indicating that throughout the whole development the quality of the code was NEVER checked nor the functionality).
Boss: "This is a shit. Dev, you have to correct all the errors and warnings marked on sonar", which are around 1200 between smelling code, high risk errors, etc.
Dev fixes something like 900 bugs... lots of hours...
Boss: "This still is all wrong, we have to redo it. We will correct the errors leaving something stable and we will make a new repository with everything programmed as it should be, with quality and all"
- 900 corrections later, now are irrelevant -
Boss: "Dev, you will start to redo it, anon is out on other project. First you must leave the existing one working properly"
Dev: "ok ..."
January: How can I correct the mess if the client asks for more things. I am just fixing the mess, doing new functionalities, and when I have free time (outside the work) I try to advance the new repository, poorly I must say because burntout.
Boss: "Everything should be arranged at the end of January, so that you can redo everything well in February."
I can't handle everything, it starts to fall further behind. Junior Anon quits the job.
February: Big Bad Bugs in the code appear and practically monopolize the month (the code is very coupled with itself and touching in one place sometimes meant breaking other stuff).
Boss: "It can't be, you've been with this since January and you haven't even started correcting this mess in the new repo"
Dev: "It is that between the new things that are requested and the bugs I cannot put myself with that"
Boss: "Do not worry, you will be helped by random dev if you needed. SPOILER ALERT: random dev is allways bussy. Not made up bussy, He had a lot of work by itself, but it can't help me the way I need it.
High anxiety levels, using free time to try to reduce the work left and gradually losing the taste for develop.
March: So far, not only do they add new things day and day, but now they want to modify things that were already "ok", add new ones and refactor everything in a new repo. I just did not see an end of this nonsense.
Dev breaks, the doctor says it's anxiety, so I just know what I have to do.
Dev: "I quit my job"
Cool Manager: "Damn, why?"
Explain everithig
Cool Manager: "Do you want to try if I can change you to other project or anotjer scope on the same project?"
Dev: "Thanks, but no Thanks. I need to stop for a while".
End. sry for long sad post and maybe poor use of English (?) Not my native language.10 -
TIL that Apple has a self-service repair service. They'll ship parts to you, and you can download their official device repair manuals to fix your device yourself.
“Self Service Repair is intended for individuals with the knowledge and experience to repair electronic devices. If you are experienced with the complexities of repairing electronic devices, Self Service Repair provides you with access to genuine Apple parts, tools, and repair manuals to perform your own out-of-warranty repair. Follow these steps to perform a variety of out-of-warranty repairs for iPhone and Mac, such as display replacements.”
https://support.apple.com/self-serv...6 -
Been watching some videos on Algorithms and my mind bleeds. Do people who know this stuff really calculate complexities for each method they write?6
-
I am a Technical Lead in the department in my company that writes code for our clients that have money but doesn't have the technical expertise to handle the complexities of our own software.
Part of my tasks involve taking care of a few projects written by employees that have left after using third-party tools rather than using our own software. No one else in this department knows these third-party tools, they only know our own, and my *still limited* web development experience means I get dumped these things in my lap.
And I'm SO pissed at these projects and their authors and the manager that let these ex-employees write these things. There is this one project that was managed by two different "developers" (I don't know they deserve this title) at two different times, and it is so riddled with different technologies it makes me want to throw up almost daily.
Don't believe me? Here is a complete list of the dependencies listed in the package.json of this project: babel-polyfill, body-parser, cookie-parser, debug, edge, edge-sql, excel-to-json, exceljs, express, html-inline, jade, morgan, mssql, mysql, pug, ramda, request, rotating-file-stream, serve-favicon, webpack, xlsx, xml2js
What this doesn't even show, is that one part of this project (literally one page) is made using react, react-dom, react-redux, and jade. The other part (again literally one page) is made using Angular and Pug. In case you missed it while picking up your jaw, there's also mssql, mysql, edge and edge-sql. excel-to-json, exceljs, xlsx.
Oh you want *more* juicy details? This project takes the entire data object used by the front-end, stringifies it into JSON, and shoves it into the database *as a single field*. And instead of doing WHERE clauses in the SQL queries, it grabs the entire table, loops, parses the json, and does a condition on it. If even one of those JSON entries gets corrupted, the entire solution breaks because these "developers" don't know what try/catch is.
The client asked for a very simple change in their app, which was to add a button that queries the back-end for a URL, shows it in a modal dialog, after which a button is clicked to verify the link by doing a second query to the back-end before modifying a couple of fields in the page.
This. Took. Me. Two. Months*. Save me. Please, save me.
*between constant context switches between this and other projects that were continuously failing because of their mistakes.4 -
Applying Occam's razor and I might be wrong..
Hiring a candidate and job hunt, both are fucking exhaustive process.
We, as a human race, have aimed for Moon and Mars but are unable to solve the problem at hand which can save millions of hours each year reflecting in immediate cost savings.
Here's my (idealistic) solution:
A product to connect job seekers and recruiters eliminating all the shitty complexities.
LinkedIn solved it, but then hired some PMs who started chasing metrics and bloated the fuck out of the product.
Here are some features of the product I am envisioning:
1. Job seeker signs up and builds their entire profile.
2. Ability to add/remove different sections (limited choices like certifications, projects, etc.), no custom shit allowed because each will have their own shit.
3. By default accept GDPR, Gender Identity, US equality laws, Vetran, yada yada..
4. No resume needed. Profile serves as resume. Eliminate the need to build a resume in word or resume builders.
5. Easy updates and no external resume, saves the job seeker time and gives a standard structure to recruiters to scan through eliminating cognitive load.
6. Recruiters can post their jobs and have similar sections (limited categories again).
7. Add GDPR, Vetran, etc. check boxes need basis.
8. No social shit. Recruiters can see profiles of job seekers and job seekers can see jobs. Period.
9. Employee working in Google? Awesome. Will not show Google recruiters thier profile and employee such job posts.
10. No need to apply or hunt heads. System will automatch and recommend because we are fucking in AI generation and how hard it is to match keywords!!
11. Saves job seekers and recruiters a fuck ton of time hunting the best fit.
12. This system gets you the best job that fits your profile.
Yes, there are flaws in this idea.
Yes, not all use cases are covered.
Yes, shit can be improved and this is hypothetical.
But hey! Surely doable with high impact than going on Moon or Mars right now.
Start-up world has lost its way.12 -
Another project, another team, another shitshow in codebase.
Now instead of doing work and implementing long awaited features... few weeks of minor refactorings ahead, untangling unnecessary complexities...
... but mostly - explaining the team why their 12-months work is pile of shitty spaghetti, and how it should really be done.
Explaining basics to "seniors" is the most exhausting thing.3 -
Here I am, a year after product launch, deleting features that delayed launch, introduced complexities, doubled the database load and made me miserable, because we figured out nobody has ever used them.1
-
My ideal Saturday night is a few (or a lot of) beers and a room full of comp sci majors arguing about hypothetical sorting methods and their theoretical complexities.1
-
At an interview, interviewer keep on hitting me with theoretical questions, why python don't have switch cases, what is default sorting in java etc... I told him I don't bother about theory, then this conversation happened.
I(Interviewer)
I: do you know time complexities?
me: Yes
I: okay, tell me a few sorting or searching algorithms which have logarithmic complexity?
me: binary search (with loud and confident voice)
I: he told, in worst case it will have O(n) tell me any other
me: *thinking*
I: what are you thinking? what is time complexity of merge sort
me: O(nlogn)
i: it's logarithmic.... -
The job description of my internship:
You must be able to understand the complexities of receiving a unit test that you are told needs only mock data in the test database, but has never worked since it was written by a contractor a year ago. No one knows how the unit test works and requires testing a complex algorithm involving graph theory that you have not learned about yet. The task starts at 1 complexity and turns into a 13. -
HOW DO I RECOVER FROM A CRYPTO SCAM - Visit OMEGA CRYPTO RECOVERY SPECIALIST
OMEGA CRYPTO RECOVERY SPECIALIST HACKER remains a recommended choice for those in need of expert assistance in navigating the complexities of crypto asset
When individuals fall victim to cryptocurrency scams and find themselves at a loss, the first step towards recovery often involves an initial consultation and assessment with a reputable recovery specialist like OMEGA CRYPTO RECOVERY SPECIALIST HACKER4 -
Fcuk dotnet and nuget and dotnet restore and nuget package restore and dotnet core and dot net framework and dotnet standard and everything with their unnecessary complexities.
Fcuk them all. Fcuk MS.15 -
How can a novel emerging challenger software (written in Rust) take me 4 hours to install (still ongoing)?
Today I have decided to give Pijul a go. Pijul describes itself as a theory-sound alternative to Git, which I have wanted to get away from for a while now, due to various reasons -- many of which I saw Pijul advertise to have solved on design level.
So I set away a day to learn Pijul, today. Well, 4 hours after I sat down -- after a number of hilariously wonky failures of "Rust ecosystem" to do the right thing as I had to install Rust with some shell one-liners those insane wizards recommend for installation process (all in the name of "stability but not stagnation") -- Pijul has now been installing with the blasted `cargo` for an hour now (that's after 3 hours of getting to the point where `cargo install pijul` stopped exploding in my face) -- telling me I only have 40 crates more to install. Are they throttling me, perhaps? I don't care -- I should have been installing Pijul from a repository in accordance with my Linux distribution, or -- at worst -- download a BLOODY COMPILED PROGRAM IMAGE.
What is it with the hipster developers today? Everything they get of tools, they subsume and churn out intricate complexities the likes of which we hadn't seen yesterday. Tell me fellow developers who think installation of your software has to require three and a half novel "installation solutions" to which I can't be arsed to be made privy -- do you think your life today is easier than, I don't know -- wrangling with a Makefile and a C compiler (which today thankfully can do rather good job of standards compliance)?
I mean I wouldn't mind Pijul being written in Rust -- but it turns out Rust's advertised elegancy in practice is wrapped in so much "giftwrap" I feel like what desire I had to learn Rust myself, I'll stear well clear.
Here's an advice for developers in general -- an advice continiously ignored for decades -- stop blowing your original scope of delivery in auxilary packages you think you need to reinvent just because you can or because your mom is out of town! For programming languages like Rust this most certainly entails NOT writing your own package manager, with its own package delivery mechanism that has its own configuration file format and virtual machine to configure dependency resolution or what have you!
You wanted to write a programming language that has novel features you think we need? Fine -- write one and stop there. Watch it grow, and watch people who are busy working on other parts (scopes) of software to integrate your offer.
What a shitshow. Stop smuggling alternative package managers, installers, and discombulators with your actual product -- I only want the latter, I don't want the rest of your damn piping, walls, roof and a cathedral on top of it!
Don't be that guy starting with a pin, and ending up with a fucking diorama miniature of a pig farm in Netherlands. Jesus.8 -
The Turing Test, a concept introduced by Alan Turing in 1950, has been a foundation concept for evaluating a machine's ability to exhibit human-like intelligence. But as we edge closer to the singularity—the point where artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence—a new, perhaps unsettling question comes to the fore: Are we humans ready for the Turing Test's inverse? Unlike Turing's original proposition where machines strive to become indistinguishable from humans, the Inverse Turing Test ponders whether the complex, multi-dimensional realities generated by AI can be rendered palatable or even comprehensible to human cognition. This discourse goes beyond mere philosophical debate; it directly impacts the future trajectory of human-machine symbiosis.
Artificial intelligence has been advancing at an exponential pace, far outstripping Moore's Law. From Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) that create life-like images to quantum computing that solve problems unfathomable to classical computers, the AI universe is a sprawling expanse of complexity. What's more compelling is that these machine-constructed worlds aren't confined to academic circles. They permeate every facet of our lives—be it medicine, finance, or even social dynamics. And so, an existential conundrum arises: Will there come a point where these AI-created outputs become so labyrinthine that they are beyond the cognitive reach of the average human?
The Human-AI Cognitive Disconnection
As we look closer into the interplay between humans and AI-created realities, the phenomenon of cognitive disconnection becomes increasingly salient, perhaps even a bit uncomfortable. This disconnection is not confined to esoteric, high-level computational processes; it's pervasive in our everyday life. Take, for instance, the experience of driving a car. Most people can operate a vehicle without understanding the intricacies of its internal combustion engine, transmission mechanics, or even its embedded software. Similarly, when boarding an airplane, passengers trust that they'll arrive at their destination safely, yet most have little to no understanding of aerodynamics, jet propulsion, or air traffic control systems. In both scenarios, individuals navigate a reality facilitated by complex systems they don't fully understand. Simply put, we just enjoy the ride.
However, this is emblematic of a larger issue—the uncritical trust we place in machines and algorithms, often without understanding the implications or mechanics. Imagine if, in the future, these systems become exponentially more complex, driven by AI algorithms that even experts struggle to comprehend. Where does that leave the average individual? In such a future, not only are we passengers in cars or planes, but we also become passengers in a reality steered by artificial intelligence—a reality we may neither fully grasp nor control. This raises serious questions about agency, autonomy, and oversight, especially as AI technologies continue to weave themselves into the fabric of our existence.
The Illusion of Reality
To adequately explore the intricate issue of human-AI cognitive disconnection, let's journey through the corridors of metaphysics and epistemology, where the concept of reality itself is under scrutiny. Humans have always been limited by their biological faculties—our senses can only perceive a sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, our ears can hear only a fraction of the vibrations in the air, and our cognitive powers are constrained by the limitations of our neural architecture. In this context, what we term "reality" is in essence a constructed narrative, meticulously assembled by our senses and brain as a way to make sense of the world around us. Philosophers have argued that our perception of reality is akin to a "user interface," evolved to guide us through the complexities of the world, rather than to reveal its ultimate nature. But now, we find ourselves in a new (contrived) techno-reality.
Artificial intelligence brings forth the potential for a new layer of reality, one that is stitched together not by biological neurons but by algorithms and silicon chips. As AI starts to create complex simulations, predictive models, or even whole virtual worlds, one has to ask: Are these AI-constructed realities an extension of the "grand illusion" that we're already living in? Or do they represent a departure, an entirely new plane of existence that demands its own set of sensory and cognitive tools for comprehension? The metaphorical veil between humans and the universe has historically been made of biological fabric, so to speak.7