Leaderboard

Yes, you can have control that completely runs in the different thread that runs its own message loop. That is different scenario from the one I said - constructing the controls in background thread and then using them in main thread. Using (inside main thread) and merely communicating (sending messages are different things. There are boundaries between controls that belong to different threads. In other words there are different levels of thread-safety. Since Windows API has thread affinity, it is not fully thread-safe. In practical terms having such application means that you need to deal with more complexities in places where you otherwise wouldn't, Using UI in same thread means you can use SendMessage to perform operations quickly because in the context of same thread SendMessage will avoid the message queue and will simply run the windows proc. However, when you SendMessage to window that belongs to different thread, SendMessage will go through message queue. But, SendMessage is blocking call and in complex to-way communication between two threads with SendMessage you can easily cause deadlock. OK, solution to that is that you don't use SendMessage, but only non blocking communication, which is slower. and that would probably work if you handle all those windows manually directly through Windows API and you exactly know to which thread they belong to. Assing any abstraction layer on top your be a nightmare (this is where we start stepping into Delphi RTL and visual frameworks). Again, thread affinity is what makes it thread-unsafe. Now, you may have different viewpoint on what thread-safe is in this context, but not being completely thread-unsafe is still far from being completely thread-safe. Some additional reading: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20051010-09/?p=33843 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20051011-10/?p=33823 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20051012-00/?p=33803 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20051013-11/?p=33783

.superdupersecure 🙂

The problem isn't the source of the information. It's how the information is being used and framed / portrayed. Anybody who has been following what's going on with the defamation suits from Dominion and Smartmatic against Fox, their management team, and their on-air lying sacks of sh*t, can see how the people running Fox are clearly targeting viewers who have such flawed critical thinking skills that they'll fall for anything the talking heads on Fox say as long as it fits a particular pattern of communication or point of view. I have a friend who's retired, and all he watches on TV is Fox. I called him to ask if he'd make me a small loan for a few days and he said "sure, but I need to get cash." I said, "Why? What's wrong with Zelle?" He said, "Haven't you heard? The IRS is coming after anybody who uses payment things like Zelle for sending more than $600 to ANYBODY! I don't want to deal with the IRS over a stupid loan like this!" I thought, "Oh, boy, I guess this is the latest crock of BS that Fox is scaring people about this week..." He's on Social Security and doesn't even file a tax return because he doesn't earn enough, and yet he's worried about getting audited by the IRS because of nonsense Fox is blathering on about this week to make Biden look bad. It's pretty hard to deal with people who can't even break down the most simple things they hear or read in the media as they may or may not apply to them! Now we've got ChatGPT that is, in all likelihood, far more accurate and less biased than Fox, and yet people are up in arms over the mistakes it seems to be making. Sure, I've found several. But Dominion and Smartmatic are very likely to get default judgments against Fox to the tune of nearly $4 billion for the mountain of evidence their lawsuit discovery processes have shown that Fox exec and talking heads have engaged in a steady practice of telling lies to their viewers in order to boost their ratings and profits. Period. And the people who make the most noise about ChatGPTs errors probably don't even realize Fox is FAR less reliable and truthful -- nor will they even accept that as a possibility. There was a book published in 1976 by Joseph Wesienbaum called "Computer Power and Human Reason". He was the founder of MIT's AI Lab. At one point in the book, he said he was asked by a reporter something like this: "What is it that humans can do that judges, psychologists, and other experts can do that computers cannot do?" His response was, "the question is what we as humans should allow or not allow computers to do that humans do." I have not found that particular quote, but here are some others I found onilne: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/496834.Joseph_Weizenbaum

That would be suicide not murder, because wrong answers kill only if the answer is accepted without any critical thought at all. (OK, it would probably kill about 90% of all people. Fair enough.)

That's what I was talking about. AI won't kill us in the way you have seen it in the television. It will kill us with wrong answers.

Wrong code generation or not wrong code generation, I don't think that this discussions lead to anything Everybody knows the current limits of ChatGPT meanwhile. Instead of poking into the failures you should better look for ways to make use of it and to break those limits. Take this fantasic use case of GPT, to make it a "CoPilot for Delphi", programmed in just one hour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnBKfrBHUIE That is something I would expect from the experienced programmers community here, instead of whining about this and that problems. Isn't our daily task to solve such algorithmic problems ? If you like it or not, the AI's will take over sooner as we can blink with an eye and the coming versions they will remove most of your concerns from today. I see AI as a partner and tool for now, not as a replacement of coders, and it can help us with our routine work to get the head free for more challenging stuff. From the Delphi community I see only the moaning about any such new features, same like with discussions on inline variables, instead to admit what a fantastic achivement modern AI could be soon