This is a pretty wild comparison in my opinion, it counts almost everything as gambling which means it has almost no use as a definition.

The most obvious issue is it’d class working with humans as gambling. Fine if you want to make that as your definition but it seems unhelpful to the discussion.

▲

RhythmFox an hour ago | parent [-]

How does it 'count almost everything as gambling'? They just said 'non-deterministic' output is gambling-like, that is not 'almost everything'. Most computation that you use on a day-to-day basis (depending on how much you use AI now I suppose) is in all ways deterministic. Using probabilistic algorithms is not new, but it your point is not clicking...

▲

organsnyder an hour ago | parent [-]

Working with humans is decidedly not deterministic, though. And the discussion here is comparing AI coding agents and humans.

	▲	RhythmFox 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That starts to get into a very philosophical space talking about human action as deterministic or not. I think keeping to the fact that the artifacts (ie code) we are working off will have deterministic effects (unless we want it not to) is exactly the point. That is what lets chaotic human brains communicate with machines at all. Adding more chaos to the system doesn't strike me as obviously an improvement.