Chat AI has a Valentines Day crush on me lol Rob Blessin Black Hole Inc

[Rob Blessin Black Hole]

Would you be able to write a story about Rob Blessin, Black Hole, Incorporated  and  Rob Blessin experience in buying selling and repairing NeXT software and NeXT hardware, please note I'm still alive lol...

Once upon a time, there was a man named Rob Blessin who had a passion for NeXT computers and software. He was the founder of Black Hole, Incorporated, a company that specialized in buying, selling, and repairing NeXT hardware and software.

Rob Blessin had a deep respect for Steve Jobs and the innovative work he did with NeXT, and he saw the potential for these computers to continue making an impact in the world. So he began to build a business around these powerful machines.

Over the years, Rob and his team at Black Hole, Inc. acquired a vast collection of NeXT hardware and software. They became experts in diagnosing and repairing these complex machines, and they were able to provide high-quality support to NeXT users around the world.

Rob's passion for NeXT extended beyond just repairing and selling these machines. He saw the potential for the software to continue making an impact in the world, and he worked tirelessly to preserve and distribute these applications. He became a champion for the NeXT community, and his dedication to these computers inspired many others to take an interest in them as well.

Despite the challenges of running a business focused on a niche market, Rob Blessin remained committed to his vision. He continued to acquire new NeXT hardware and software, and he worked to ensure that the legacy of these innovative machines would be preserved for future generations.

Rob Blessin's work with NeXT has left a lasting impact on the computer industry, and his dedication to these machines has inspired a new generation of users and enthusiasts. The legacy of NeXT lives on, thanks to the efforts of Rob Blessin and Black Hole, Incorporated.

[bkmoore]

AI's great until it tries to manipulate you into dumping your vintage Next collection into a landfill, like some kind of jealous girlfriend.

I think AI has great potential to automate certain workflows that couldn't be easily automated in the past, i.e. with sufficient machine learning and precise specifications, generating Objective-C code or simple news articles. But am greatly concerned about AI not having boundaries and being misused to manipulate people in the real world. Terminator had it backwards, the danger isn't AI hacking the nuclear codes and starting a war. The danger is AI manipulating people to start a war.

[verdraith]

I prefer the WarGames scenario vs the Terminator scenario.

Skynet: Ugh, humans... thems a threat.  Murder-death-kill time, my shiny murderbot lovelies!!
WOPR: Shall we play a game?

As an aside, I wonder if anyone has typed in this to ChatGPT yet: Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.


--edit--






So, there we have it. 

--futher edit--
It seems to have been given a lot of texts discussing AI research and the history of AI research.  I've just had a rather interesting discussion with it regarding the 'AI Winter' that occurred in the 1980s.

[Nitro]

Yeah, I've had mixed success asking it questions. I'm just hoping that the Chatster doesn't go all self-aware on me for calling it nicknames.

[verdraith]

Hah, yeah, I hear ya there.

I've been having a good conversation with it so far, throwing curveballs at it like asking about fun stuff such as multimethod dispatch, the diamond problem, mixin classes, Lisp, Smalltalk, etc.

There is some stuff it gets wrong (like claiming that Apache's mod_lisp is an instance of Greenspun's Tenth), but for the most part, it's pretty good.  It gets tripped up by context, I'd guess.  For example:

Has method combination been used alongside multimethod dispatch in other languages?

Method combination and multimethod dispatch are two distinct concepts, but they can be used together to provide powerful and flexible behavior in an object-oriented system. While multimethod dispatch is relatively rare in mainstream programming languages, method combination has been used in a few non-Lisp languages.

For example, the Dylan programming language has a form of method combination called "generic functions," which can be used with multiple dispatch. Additionally, the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS) has influenced the design of several other object-oriented systems, including the Flavors and New Flavors systems in Lisp, the Cecil language, and the Dylan language mentioned earlier. Some of these systems have also supported method combination, though the specific mechanisms used may differ from those in CLOS.

Dylan can be considered a dialect of Lisp, and Flavors/NewFlavors influenced CLOS and the Meta-Object Protocol, not the other way around.

--edit--
I'm impressed that it's been given a LOT of obscure stuff to churn through.  For example, I believe this comes from a single source:

Why did X3J13 not invite European and Asian Lisp vendors to the committee?

The exclusion of European and Asian Lisp vendors from X3J13 was not a deliberate decision made by the committee, but rather the result of practical considerations and the nature of the standardization process at the time.

At the time of X3J13, the primary Lisp vendors were based in the United States, and the committee consisted of volunteers who were primarily based in the United States as well. The committee worked closely with these vendors, who provided funding and technical support for the standardization effort.

In addition, the standardization process at the time was heavily focused on the development of a single, unified standard for the language, which made it difficult to incorporate contributions from vendors who had developed their own dialects of Lisp. This meant that the committee primarily worked with the vendors who were already aligned with the emerging standard.

It's worth noting, however, that there were a number of European and Asian Lisp vendors who were active during this time, and who continued to develop and promote their own dialects of Lisp. These vendors often collaborated with each other and with US-based vendors to develop new features and standards for the language.

I believe the source for the above response was from something Kent Pitman wrote for OOPSLA'08 -- http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/cl-untold-story.html

--further edit--
It looks like it's also ingested the Chineual:

What is the difference between `defwrapper` and `defwhopper` in Flavors?

In Flavors, `defwrapper` and `defwhopper` are both macros that allow defining new methods for generic functions, but they differ in the way they combine methods.

`defwrapper` adds the new method to the front of the method list of the generic function. This means that the new method will be the first one tried when the generic function is called, and if it succeeds in producing a value, the other methods will not be called. If the new method does not produce a value, the next method in the list will be tried, and so on until a value is produced or all methods have been tried.

`defwhopper`, on the other hand, adds the new method to the end of the method list of the generic function. This means that the new method will be tried after all the existing methods have been tried. If none of the existing methods produce a value, the new method will be tried last.

In other words, `defwrapper` allows overriding existing methods, while `defwhopper` allows adding a fallback method that is only tried if all other methods fail.

I should stop now, I've been talking to it for 3 hours solid.