To others yes, but not to you. It can be impossible to prove to an idiot that they are an idiot, but you do realize others read Slashdot, right? Or are you an even bigger idiot than it at first appears?

Zig isn't ready for AI because AI isn't ready for Zig. There is a bootstrapping problem. Quality training data is limited because it is new, and many humans don't yet have the experience needed to be good at it.

Since Zig is newer, developers are often learning the language alongside the AI. A novice developer might accept an AI's bad allocator usage or improper async handling simply because they lack the expertise to audit it properly. This creates a situation that causes AI to be less effective when using it for Zig development when compared to C and C++ development efficacy, even if they review proposed changes prior to submission of the pull request. Citing Zigs experience as indicative of a global condemnation of AIs usefulness in a software development context represents a complete failure to look at the big picture and place the facts in context. One can use an AI to explore this further.

After thinking a bit about this I asked Gemini (free version) "I am trying to determine if AI generated zig code would likely be of poorer quality than C code due to a few factors. One is that zig is new so many developers may not be very skilled with it, and another is that there is limited training data as compared to C or C++." It had a lot of insightful commentary on my point. In fact there was far too much to copy and paste here, but anyone interested can do so if they want to explore my point (made primarily in the first paragraph of this post) further.

An example that a lot of people don't understand how to use AI properly is not an example of proof that AI is useless or flawed and produces trash and reduces efficiency. As with any tool, when used properly by skilled people it is a good thing, and when misused by people with no training in its use it can be counterproductive and sometimes destructive.

Assuming a correlation between Slashdot UID and the users age and experience calls into question your software development skills.

Nobody knows that because you just pulled that claim out of your ass.

Didn't cry little girl. You could still probably learn to knit or something. I truly believe that you can find some kind of discipline to learn in which you may be competent. Technology just isn't your thing, that's all.

You have to be phenomenally incompetent to suggest that only systems that trust their users are safe. Why have a trust model at all. You constantly amaze me with your incompetence, and you have already set the bar ridiculously low.

I agree, after all, you are a human and your attitude is quite dangerous.

Although honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the study was still bumpkis. I can't be bothered sitting down and really reading through it.

That's OK. We are all just forever grateful that you at least took the time to pretend to be an expert anyway!

"Me or you on the street can tell if a car is speeding through "that light", and we can make a decision split second... pull over or slam on the brakes or any number of things."

First of all, it's "You or I on the street", not "Me or you on the street." Second of all, someone should invent self-driving cars!

You are trying to play a semantic war of wits but you are unarmed. You want to define "thinking" as "something only a human can do", then claim computers can't "think." It's a strawman based tautology.

I don't understand how you think either. Does that mean that you don't think? I mean you are clearly thought and inference challenged, so maybe you can't see how stupid your argument is?

The first problem with your argument is that you are assuming that OpenAI released responsibly. Who says what they did isn't dangerous? The second is that Anthropic gave access to major players a while back, so corporations have had time to fix zero days before ChatGPT was released. Third, even if it is true that it isn't dangerous to make models with this much power available now, that doesn't prove that Anthropic didn't have a good faith concern that it might be. Finally, a basic understanding of the security dynamics would tell you that putting tools in the hands of black hats is always a danger, but it is a cost benefits analysis. Complex problems can't be understood by simple minds.

There is only one problem with your "pretty clear" claim. They released it. Just because they didn't release it to you doesn't mean they didn't release it.

MAGA shill says what?

I am a US citizen. I am not in favor of Iran over the US, however many of us are 100% in favor of Iran over Trump. Don't conflate Trump with the US. Trump does not now, nor has he ever, cared about the US populace. He managed to con a (too large) segment of the US citizenry into believing he was interested in doing what is right for them, but as they are finding out now, we are all victims of this sociopathic narcissist. Higher prices caused by this are in fact the price we will all have to pay for things to get better, but things will only get better when those higher prices wake a large enough portion of the MAGA victims to the awareness level needed to accept that they have been conned.