Coding arguably requires talent - although Microsoft has been proving consistently for half a century that you can be a successful software company with piss-poor engineers.

But even if AI produced perfect code, then producing software essentially requires no talent. I'm not saying it's a bad thing in itself, but it moves the act of producing software squarely into the realm of everyday mediocre accessible to everyday talentless people.

And on top of that, the fallacy is that AI simply doesn't produce anywhere near anything that resembles perfect code. But of course, Microsoft is desperate to have you believe otherwise...

I'll just say this: I'm glad I'm at the end of my career as a software engineer, because I didn't spend a lifetime honing my skills to end up a mediocre types-question-guy.

I've noticed a lot more typos and non-sequiturs in forums, blog posts and news articles in the last two years. Maybe K12 should teach kids to write proper English, since the AIs are clearly not helping to solve that basic problem.

Notre Dame was partially destroyed multiple times since 1163 and (luckily) repaired each time. It was also redesigned multiple times to avoid imminent collapse. Notre Dame's repair plan was external.

The wood needed for repairs required tall and straight trees, hundreds of years old, planted in special purpose forests. These forests are mostly gone due to other factors, and this time there was a scavenger hunt across the country just to find enough replacement trees. Previously, suitable old trees were plentiful. In terms of redesign, unforeseen extra buttresses were needed to reinforce the structure centuries later.

In space, there is no external repair plan and no redesign of unforeseen flaws. The density of particles is too low to collect material outside the space ship. Recycling has limited applicability over many cycles due to degradation. Carrying extensive repair materials also adds unacceptable mass, which reduces the top travel speed and increases travel time by centuries. Increased travel time means increased time for degradation.

The design needs to be complete and resilient from the beginning, not rely on future cleverness and external resources every 50 years or so to patch up unforeseen problems. Space is hard and we have never attempted something even remotely similar on such a timescale.

Never say never. Some kids are fucked up. The answer is that general one size fits all solutions (either throw all of them in jail, or never throw anyone in jail) are suboptimal.

What happens when the first generation of kids comes of age, notices they never gave consent to be confined to a ship for their entire lives, and decides to turn around?

Religion is a tried and true solution used by humanity many times previously to solve just that very same issue.

Personally though I think that the engineering problems dwarf the social ones. Humanity's longest lived buildings are only a few thousand years old, and they are basically ruins not fit to live in. We have no clue how to build anything that would stay intact and fit for purpose over 500 years.

You're cute. Denying the competition exists is a losing strategy. I'm making popcorn.

Not really, to be honest. A lot of the stuff that the scientists and engineers do with the tools could be done another way, and often has. The actual *excess* return on investment, once you remove what previous solutions achieved in the same space, is rather unimpressive and close to zero.

The world works by having each generation forget the past, and think they are clever reinventing things for the first time in a new way. *Actual* progress almost never comes close to the hype.

There's no if. The AI software offerings targeted to medium to large companies do not work in the way you think (or hope) they do. There would be no point in such piecemeal and security conscious integration. It doesn't scale. The proposition is to let the AI loose on internal documentation, and to connect AI with internal software services via RAG technologies. Dedicated attackers *will* get deep access through convoluted attacks.

I don't think the hallucination problem is the bigger one compared to jailbreaking. Hallucinations are garbage out type phenomena. Whereas jailbreaking are commandeering the AI type of phenomena. The business dream is to give AI direct access to internal information and independent agency to perform critical business operations. Those are the juicy targets of jailbreaking attacks.

The OP didn't. I'm mystified how you would come to such a conclusion, though. Care to share your reasoning?

What is the worth of a snitch inside of every company who will tell you inside information about that company whenever you feel like asking?

Unimportant. The attack surface is (rightly) huge. They will need separate stickers for all possible body parts.

The stress level measurement is what the smartwatch pretends to supply you - a feature that entices you to purchase the watch, if you're interested in knowing your stress level.

What's being monetized is the raw data - accelerometer measurements, O2, location... whatever the hell those things measure to do what they pretend to do - because a lot of really invasive and personal information can be inferred from those measurements.

collect data on you for monetization.