←back to thread

A “frozen” dictionary for Python

(lwn.net)
191 points jwilk | 4 comments | 11 Dec 25 09:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
sundarurfriend ◴[11 Dec 25 12:13 UTC] No.46230418[source]▶
Can someone ELI5 the core difference between this and named tuples, for someone who is not deep into Python? ChatGPT's answer boiled down to: unordered (this) vs ordered (NTs), "arbitrary keys, decided at runtime" vs "fixed set of fields decided at definition time" (can't an NT's keys also be interpolated from runtime values?), and a different API (`.keys()`, `.items()`), etc (I'm just giving this as context btw, no idea if there's inaccuracies in these).

So could this also have been approached from the other side, as in making unordered NamedTuples with support for the Mapping API? The line between dictionaries and named tuples and structs (across various languages) has always seemed a bit blurry to me, so I'm trying to get a better picture of it all through this.

replies(5): >>46230459 #>>46230674 #>>46230747 #>>46230783 #>>46237202 #
grimgrin ◴[11 Dec 25 12:18 UTC] No.46230459[source]▶
I think you could have asked this same comment w/o mentioning ChatGPT and you wouldn't have been downvoted to oblivion in 3 minutes

I don't see anything wrong with your asking to understand

replies(1): >>46230803 #
chistev ◴[11 Dec 25 12:56 UTC] No.46230803[source]▶
This place hates ChatGPT and AI. Lol.

Edit: Of course, I get down voted as I predicted I would. Lol.

replies(2): >>46230834 #>>46232406 #
acdha ◴[11 Dec 25 13:00 UTC] No.46230834[source]▶
This place hates laziness and imprecision. Using ChatGPT for editing or inspiration is okay as long as you personally review the results for accuracy and completeness, at which point people care about it as much as you announcing that you used a spell checker.
replies(1): >>46230873 #
delaminator ◴[11 Dec 25 13:04 UTC] No.46230873[source]▶
Pasting chat GPT responses is against the site rules.

always has been even before GPT

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46206457

replies(2): >>46230943 #>>46244911 #
1. quietbritishjim ◴[12 Dec 25 15:17 UTC] No.46244911[source]▶
True, but the original comment that we're talking about here (by sundarurfriend) just mentioned an LLM's output in passing as part of their (presumably) human-written comment. Nothing you've linked to prohibits that.
replies(1): >>46245226 #
2. delaminator ◴[12 Dec 25 15:47 UTC] No.46245226[source]▶
Presaging your bot produced comment with "A bot said this" is not human written
replies(2): >>46246745 #>>46253731 #
3. acdha ◴[12 Dec 25 18:03 UTC] No.46246745[source]▶
Except in that case they were summarizing it, which I read as closer to “I found this on Stack Overflow but don’t know if it’s right”. I think that’s less offensive than having the post be LLM output or, especially, pretending to be authoritative.
4. quietbritishjim ◴[13 Dec 25 11:06 UTC] No.46253731[source]▶
That is still true and still irrelevant here. The comment we're talking about was not written by a bot with a disclaimer at the start. They just asked about its output. They didn't even quote its output - they paraphrased it and added their own commentary!

I know HN rules prohibit saying "did you even read it?" but you surely can't have read the comment to have come to this view, or at least significantly misread it. Have another look.

Most of all, HN guidelines are about encouraging thoughtful discussion. sundarurfriend's comment asked a genuinely interesting question and inspired interesting discussion. This subthread of "but AI!" did not.