OTOH, this is an attached processor, so it's in addition to your current setup. Still doesn't sound likely to blow circuit breakers, but possibly equivalent to running two computers.

There are, or at least were, many applications that were useful and on Windows, but not available on Linux or BSD. Switching off of those can be a significant cost. But if you change the underlying system, those probably won't be available anyway.

In your case it might simply be that there was not enough of this kind of tasks in the training data.

The core is a LONG way from the surface. Volcanoes aren't. The mantle plumes move slowly.

OTOH, we've known that the magnetic poles were getting ready to switch for decades now. We don't know when or why or how long it will take. This is probably related to that, but we don't have any really good models.

I agree in general, but not with this strong phrasing. I've let AI build a good amount of non-trivial code. But my consistent experience is that it works best when guided by an experienced coder who can correct it, and when implementing well-known algorithms rather than coming up with novel solutions.

Example: I let it write up a quadtree implementation in a language for which there was no ready solution online. It took 2-3 correcting prompts to get a good result. I could've done it myself but it would've likely taken a few hours to get it all right instead of the half or so hour it took with AI. The important part for me was that there's nothing unknown in how to implement a quadtree. All the AI needs to do is take the 100s of existing implementations and translate them into a different language.

True but too simplified. The Luddites had an entirely different motivation: The fact that factories now employed women and children at very low rates meant that the men lost their status in the family as bread winners and head of household. That was a major social disruption, which we don't have with AI.

I'd compare it more to teamsters or wagoners when cars became common. Your job is threatened by a different way of doing the same thing, a way to which your skills don't cleanly transition. Some choose to pick up the new tech, some want the old ways to persist.

In the end, coachmen became chauffeurs, because rich people prefer to be driven around oder driving themselves, no matter if it's a horse or an engine doing the pulling. But much fewer teamsters and wagoners became truck drivers.

Unfortunately, when they are separated like that each half becomes nearly useless. They need to be merged, though with clear demarcations so you can skip a part that isn't currently relevant.

I think a giant context is not going to be the answer. It's just got too many problems. Better will probably be parsing the context into connected pieces, and at a different level assembling the "lemmas" into "theorums". (Yeah, those aren't quite the right words, but I'm not sure the right words exist, and that's the analogy from math proofs. Code library isn't the right concept as the "lemma" will often be quite specific to the current task.)

But 1st and 2nd grades???
Sorry, but that sounds like a REALLY bad idea. More than half of what those grades should be about is learning to operate well in groups.

You mean like XML does?

Your mistake is thinking of "the government" as a unitary entity. Different parts of it want different things.

BOTH of them? :-)

Well, the use case is clearly to produce binaries with smaller memory footprint. But *I* didn't even notice that Debian had disabled it.

The exact scenario we warned about when the discussions about this "responsible disclosure" nonsense started. Someone needs a reminder that letting you know your software sucks is a courtesy, not something you can demand.

FWIW, if they want to class insecticides as "toxins", I think they're probably right. Also plasticizers. And likely a few other industrial chemicals that aren't properly cleaned up.