I did not know that.

I waited for 10-15 seconds of the HDD light not blinking.

They really slipped that in without thinking it through I feel.

I felt the same way about the iMac at first. Thets when I learned how painfully slow a floppy was. Email over dialup became the way to go.

DOS with caching could be a real risk since DOS didn't have a shutdown command.

You basically just had to do nothing for a bit and then turn it off.

We used them regularly for at least half a decade in the print business (probably a whole decade).

Floppies were super slow and too small. The internet was barely a thing (one of our locations had to share a dialup connection even). For $10-20 they weren't disposable, but it wasn't tragedy if one got lost (accidentally borrowed...).

It was quite a while before CD burners became cheap and omnipresent enough to take over entirely.

Essentially from the moment they came out until cheap 1gb USB drives existed they had a place. The were the speed of an 8x CD and couold easily be reused.

I think the primary issue with jazz drives is people treated the diaks like floppies but they were much more fragile.

People would throw them in bags, toss them across the table etc.

They were pretty great for expanding home storage, but unlike flying floppy tech (such as a zip drive) they suffered if being used for frequent transport and sharing.

If memory serves it was the very early SCSI ones that had the problem.

And it was infectious as you described it.

I worked at a print shop and we took a lot of then from customers and never had the problem though.

I imagine they could have negotiated earlier too. That way it would be Dune in a pickle to get IMAX screens.

They probably did run the tools.

Then saw more work than they wanted to do.

I'm pretty sure they found more bugs than they wanted to fix when the checked the code.

You can file ansuit for anything you want.

But it's not going to stick when every claim is researched and the speculative parts are stated as such.

So $150 million to train the two models?

Seems like a reasonable capital cost if it worked and was legal.

Charge subscriptions of $10,000 year to keep something up to date. You wouldn't need a profound amount of customers to cover it.

I'm skeptical this company is doing it properly (or even has their own models), but I think you could do this with two models.

The documenter is trained on all available data.

The coder is trained but without any copy left code.

Clean room reverse engineering actually seems like a place where AI will be extremely capable.

With open source you can document a lot more than with closed source.

Generally if the implementors have seen the original then it's not clean room.

It seems to me if one AI writes documentation and then another that never saw the code in question writes code it'd be legit.

How is that illegal?