Bro, you need to stake a step back and take a few breaths.

if you have a rudimentary understanding of tech stack terminology, then you know what FikeSystem [sic] refers to in this context.

No we don't, because your context is incompatible with reality.

A filesystem is just a way to format data.

A filesystem framework is a way to create/manage a format of data.

Neither have anything to do with Web Development.

NodeJS:FS [...] It is literally called a FileSystem in the docs, take your complaints up with them

The first sentence on their docs explicitly say: The node:fs module enables interacting with the file system in a way modeled on standard POSIX functions.

It's not a file system, it's a module for interacting with a file system.

Same thing with Laravel:

Laravel provides a powerful filesystem abstraction thanks to the wonderful Flysystem PHP package by Frank de Jonge.

An abstraction (like everything else in laravel), not a file system.

If that still doesn't convince you that Node and Laravel are not file systems or file system frameworks, consider the fact that Node also has a module called OS and Laravel has a module called database. Is node an operating system? Is Laravel a database?

Please be polite, lest you risk self-burn ironies such as these:

A simple search could do you a world of good, pal.

Anybody who doesn’t understand what is being discussed after reading that should not be trying to answer, I don’t really have a lot of time to educate every single passerby on the most basic of terminology.

I’m an ameteur at best.

Except that it’s been demonstrated multiple times that original training data can be extracted from a language model, so it is completely valid to talk about the model as a database, because the training data is stored within it.

It's been demonstrated that some more prominent pieces of training data can be reproduced, the majority of it cannot. This shows that those particular pieces of data are represented in some form within the model, it does not show that the way it works is equivalent to database lookups. If I can write down the lyrics of a song from memory, it shows that those lyrics are encoded as data in some form in my brain, but that doesn't mean it's valid to talk about my brain as a literal database, especially not in the sense that the limitations in the capabilities of a database can be ascribed to me (or its strengths, I cannot remember the exact lyrics of most songs I've heard, even if I can remember some).

Hill Climbing Algorithm & Artificial Intelligence - Computerphile

This video literally starts out by describing evolution as a similar optimization algorithm. If you know the basic mechanism of evolution, does that mean you can use that to then say with certainty and specificity what biological life in its vast diversity of techniques is not capable of? The "underlying operating principles" of evolution don't "understand" chemistry or deception, but they still produce organisms capable of photosynthesis and camouflage. It's an algorithm that produces other algorithms, which is what puts those resulting algorithms in a different category of comprehensibility than fixed algorithms that were explicitly written by someone. We are very far from having a comprehensive understanding of biological systems, despite knowing how evolution works.

This is not a tool that can comprehend what it is doing, it can’t be self-aware. It can only process large amounts of input data and attempt to maximize for particular dimensions. This seems vague to humans because the amount of variables being handled at any given time is far more than a human mind can focus on, but that doesn’t make the optimization routine intelligent or conscious. It’s just doing a lot of number crunching really fast, optimizing for specific aspects as directed by its developers.

This is like saying evolution is only a simple mechanism taking in the world as data, which, yeah, obviously, but that property doesn't carry forward to what it produces. The bigger problem here though is, again, concepts like comprehension, consciousness, and intelligence are not well defined in computational terms, and it is unclear what statements involving them mean in any practical sense. These sorts of claims are non-falsifiable and don't make testable predictions about the boundaries of AI capability.

How about I use a proper FileSystem framework and have proper discussion with people who do? Why are there so many people trying to dismiss the entire discussion? Probably just one guy and his alts, maybe a Tankie I pissed off.

simulation ≠ reality

Yes it is, if your simulation is sufficiently accurate. Let me rephrase. Which part of the brain do you think has behaviour that is required for intelligence/consciousness and that behaviour cannot be replicated with sufficient accuracy on a computer (of arbitrary capacity)?

That's a dumb reply. If you count fs from nodejs then you can literally Google "how to [read/write/stream] file in [pretty much any language".

That's just straight up wrong man. A lot of words in programming are not just semantics, they're concrete shorthands for very specific things.

Honestly, that was a perfectly reasonable question and you're being rude. Pretty much every programmer knows what a filesystem is but a filesystem framework is not clear.

I would have pitched in with questions and suggestions but since you're being a dick I won't.

Uhh, just use the HDD and file commands with any service? It's not forbidden to just serve a whatever file from a REST endpoint.

If your not doing a Dropbox virtual filesystem or forced to work with ftp/sftp then just make a whatever endpoint and send back a file instead in any language/framework.

Language models are not databases and they are not markov bots (similar function but work directly using statistical word association maps).

Except that it's been demonstrated multiple times that original training data can be extracted from a language model, so it is completely valid to talk about the model as a database, because the training data is stored within it.

Here's a broad survey of more than 100 research papers demonstrating this: Training Data Extraction From Pre-trained Language Models: A Survey

There is much more uncertainty about what is going on under the hood.

So, this is a good anology in this case.

See, I know how an internal combustion engine works. I don't know, by looking at the hood of a particular vehicle, how exactly a specific car's engine operates (maybe it has 4 cylinders, or 6 or 8, maybe it has fuel injectors, maybe it has a carburetor, etc). However, I do know that the principles are the same for all internal combustion engines, and that just because I don't know the details of how a particular engine operates, that does not mean that its operation is beyond my understanding.

The same is true for machine learning models. There may be uncertainty as to how a particular model operates "under the hood", but the principles of operation are the same for all, and are not incomprehensible.

The main thing we can really know is that ultimately a human mind is a computer

We actually don't know this. This is called computationalism. It is speculative, there are several alternative theories, and little in the way of experimental evidence supporting any particular theory.

The idea that they are "just statistical models" and this knowledge can be used to say what is impossible for them from philosophical first principles keeps getting repeated but has never worked in practice. The reality is that no one knows enough to say for sure where the line is.

You have to understand, the current branch of machine learning models grew out of algorithms whose purpose was processing large data sets with thousands or millions of variables and optimizing for areas in the data set where many of those variables were maximized (or minimized). Here's a better explanation:

Hill Climbing Algorithm & Artificial Intelligence - Computerphile

How these tools perform their optimization, and what they optimize for, has been recombined in different ways to produce different types of models, and the search space of variables has been expanded with increased computing power, but the underlying operating principles are still the same. This is not a tool that can comprehend what it is doing, it can't be self-aware. It can only process large amounts of input data and attempt to maximize for particular dimensions. This seems vague to humans because the amount of variables being handled at any given time is far more than a human mind can focus on, but that doesn't make the optimization routine intelligent or conscious. It's just doing a lot of number crunching really fast, optimizing for specific aspects as directed by its developers.

No, it's not arbitrary, the learning is done by completely different software at a completely different time on completely different computers.

I'm pointing out that the LLM is the product of the machine learning, where you feed all of Wikipedia and reddit and stack overflow in and calculate the LLM from it.

It's like if you wrote a book about the wildlife of antarctica. First you would learn about the wildlife and then you would write the book. The book isn't learning anything and it isn't intelligent. The book represents knowledge but it doesn't itself know or understand anything.

Similarly, the LLM isn't learning anything and it isn't intelligent, it's just regurgitating randomly selected words from its training data that look like they usually occur after the other words in the conversation so far.

It genuinely doesn't understand a word you said, using its guess about what sort of conversation it's supposed to be having and it's always just guessing what word it's supposed to say next.

• PHP: Programming language, not a file system
• Laravel: A web framework built on PHP, not a file system
• ASP.NET: A web framework built on .NET, not a file system.
• NodeJS: A JavaScript runtime, not a file system

Node:FS is a module for NodeJS which is the first time you have mentioned something that interacts with file systems. It is NOT a file system, but a way to work with a file system. All these programming languages and web frameworks you're mentioning has a way to interact with file systems. You shouldn't choose your tech stack based on this, you should choose it on all it's other properties where they actually differ.

With your less-than-rudimentary understanding of IT and programming I'd suggest you avoid looking like an idiot by arguing with experts and just accept the free help and corrections that are offered. If you keep being an asshole when people try to understand what you mean because your explanation is all over the place, no one will offer their time, especially not for free.

One of the most widely commented things about DNNs is that we don't really understand them completely. I don't know how you would miss that if you knew anything about AI at all.

No one who actually works on digital neural networks thinks this. We may not be able to predict the behavior of a particular neural network with certainty (because there are a lot, like millions, of variables), but that does not mean that we don't understand how they work.

Which part of the brain do you think is impossible to simulate with maths?

simulation ≠ reality

What, praytell, is this supposed syntax? A curl invocation? Including a link to a CDN resource in an HTML <script> tag?

A URL on the web is not what anyone would call a framework, I'm sorry to say. Is www.google.com a framework? Google programmed the server serving the content at that URL, right? Or what, is it only special URLs that only programmers use? Is your operating system a "framework"? Someone programmed that too, right? How about your coffee maker? That's also something someone programmed.

It's funny how the wikipedia article on CDNs doesn't mention the word "framework" once, yet the article on a real framework like React mentions the word 8 times and links to other frameworks and lists of frameworks.

Maybe, just maybe, it has a more narrow definition than "someone programmed it so you don't have to".

I'm handing in my resignation notice next week! Signed the contract for my new job today :D

I wouldn't call my main project quite a sinking ship yet, but it's certainly getting there. Managers are foaming at the mouth to have all developers use as much AI as possible, so the codebase is generating technical debt at a record pace. The project is fully dependent on AWS (the customers, large players in one of Germany's essential public sectors, are getting more hesitant about that fact by the day) but there's no plan or even consideration to maybe look towards alternative cloud providers. And security issues and CVEs are piling up left right and center because npm libraries are just pulled in with no care in the world. Can't even keep up with opening enough tickets for all of them. I'm really surprised that the company had no major security incident yet, but it feels like we are due for one any day.

Honestly, it was fun while it lasted. I'm mainly just leaving because I haven't really gotten to build any new features in months now because I'm the only one who really cares enough to go in and fix CVEs. I feel like I'm just the janitor at this point 🤷

You answered like you understood what I asked lol

Like a rat! About 3/4 of my career hops were exactly that. Some I was aware of, some because my red flags were just the surface apparently.

As long as a job gives me enough of treasure we make AND I can meaningfully contribute I'm happy. Places going under tend to fail to do one or the other or both!

One time I was just super lucky. I wanted to move from ops to less stressful engineering, and only found out that my old employer lost the client I was fully interegrated with.

A CDN is not a programming language library

You think they were just magicked into existence? Nah, they were programmed, and you can use specific syntax to call upon their functions.

It is not at all the same definition. A CDN is not a programming language library, which is how I had defined frameworks (with other qualifiers). All frameworks are (one or more) libraries in a programming language. A CDN is, ultimately, a network of running servers that serve up content. It's a distribution mechanism for content, not a method of building software applications (which is what frameworks are). You can use a CDN to deliver the code for a framework/library to a web browser (or anywhere else, really), but that is not the same as saying that it is a framework itself, because it is not.

A bunch of people in this thread, including myself, have been trying to help answer your original question (part of which is clarifying terms, since you seem to be confused about how things work, which is understandable for someone inexperienced), and yet you've been very combative and lashing out at people in spite of describing yourself as an amateur. When experts in the field correct your misunderstandings, it's wise to learn from the information you're given rather than telling everyone that they are wrong. Your attitude will not get you very far and will simply make people unwilling to help you learn.

Your question makes little sense, and then you tell people to search for... Something?

Sure! Go to a sub where people are trying to be helpful and give an attitude when they ask you to make sense

The quoted text makes no sense. It has gaps. And the comment you dismissed seemingly pointed that out.

Websites don't have a file system. They serve content as responses.

PHP is not a filesystem. ASPNET is not a filesystem.

You could be talking about managing files, you could be talking about sourcing web responses from local files, or you could be talking about something else.

Yeah I've quit startups twice when they ran out of money. They were both transparent about it and not everyone quit. One of them got bought and is still alive. One of them found a bit of extra money...

But to be honest a big part of quitting was because the product obviously wasn't commercially successful enough, and I didn't really want to work on a doomed product.

I don't really understand what you're asking tbh. If you want to quit, quit! You don't owe them anything.