Maybe there was a bug they aren't telling us about, like something that allowed people to bypass DRM when consuming some form of media. THAT will get Microsoft's actual clients really angry and demand an immediate resolution.

Something that puts us all at risk of being victimized by criminals, on the other hand, can be buried in the priority queue for months or years.

I imagine that Microsoft's dev team is under the same irrational deadline pressure that all other dev teams face. Business owners perpetually insist that development is taking to long and that we are doomed if this doesn't get out the door in time. It's even worse now that they think "there, you have AI, so where's my 10x productivity gain?" The real irony being that even if they did get a bonafide 10x productivity gain (by any means), it would feel to them like things slowed down a little bit, because their sense of how fast things are going is mostly a function of how much they want to accomplish, and that goal always expands to exceed their productive capacity.

So, everything is rushed out and buggy, even (and especially) from a company like Microsoft. Enough resources to buy multiple sovereign nations, and still unable to produce reliable software.

I wonder why there is a steady stream of articles about how much more productive AI has made employees coming from companies that sell AI-powered solutions. Why don't we get a similarly steady stream of such articles from companies that don't sell anything AI-related?

(For clarity: these questions are rhetorical).

Medicine is as effective as exercise for depression?

This is how sociopaths think. They ask questions like "Would this benefit me?" and "Am I big enough to get away with it?"

Thoughts like "is it ethical?" or "does it harm others?" or even "is it illegal?" Don't even enter their minds.

They just make up their own rules. "You cannot bot-around through our site, but we can and will bot-around through yours, and we can and will advertise your stuff on our site (incorrectly) sending you problems and expecting you to be grateful for that, and if you don't like it you can opt out after the damage is done." The article doesn't say how one opts-out. I wonder how easy (and free) that process is...

What you are saying about salt is simply not true.

Not at all!

In the case of saturated fats, there is ongoing debate with evidence both ways. I am not going to bother to cite any of it because it clearly won't make a difference. Wherever you are getting your health information from, it clearly isn't reputable studies.

You really should get a proper education on the relevant facts before forming opinions on such important topics, and especially before you go trying to convince others that you know what you are talking about.

I agree with you. This article is saying exactly what employers want to hear, in a very matter-of-fact and highly enthusiastic way. "Oh sure, one guy does the work of 10 now. It's totally easy and anyone can do it. Just buy my product!" It's not, however, providing any kind of objective metrics that this is even true, nor indicator that this productivity level applies to all project types, nor whether the code stays maintainable in the long term.

The article states that opting for this pricier bot and pipeline solves the biggest problem of AI-assisted development: the need for humans to correct the bot's mistake. I don't believe for a nanosecond they they have solved this problem just by throwing more bots into the mix.

When there's proof, that's when I will believe it. For now, what we have here looks a lot more like grift.

Based on how this thread went, it appears the answer is "no, the democrats aren't ready to have an honest conversation. All they want to do is spew hatred and project their own bigotry."

Sad.

I wish I could say "I never use Microsoft Office for anything, it's all just LibreOffice!"

But, unfortunately, I have a job. My employer (like nearly all employers) requires the use of "Microsoft 365 Copilot App".

I found a few job listings that are Linux-focused....they paid significantly less than what I am making.

So, I guess, I have been bribed into using this garbage. That's the bottom line then: I hate Microsoft products so much they literally have to pay me to use them.

Power also corrupts. So in those rare cases where virtuous people wind up with any amount of power at all, they do not remain virtuous for very long.

But what you said is still true: the already evil (or, as they prefer to think of it, already enlightened) are the ones who most aggressively seek positions of power (and who have the most advantages for attaining it, since they have no problems playing dirty to win).

You are correct. The people quoted in this summary seem to believe that hallucinations are a solvable problem for AI, and that they solved it, it just took a lot longer than expected.

Nope, they didn't solve it. Their AI will still hallucinate, and can still be jailbroken too. Their optimism suggests a severe lack of due diligence, despite the extended period they have worked on this. I am imagining some egos are involved that simply cannot admit to failure, especially given what they have spent, but that is going to make it all the more embarrassing (and harmful) when the hallucinations cause real world harm and they take it offline at that time.

On the other hand, maybe they actually DID make an AI chatbot that never hallucinates! What an amazing leap forward for AI tech! This is really going to revolutionize the industry! (But does anyone at all actually believe this? I sure don't.)

If our culture experiences any shift involving a lowering of working hours without a lowering of salaries, AI will have nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing at all, even if the promises of enhanced worker productivity are true.

The one and only thing that would result in fewer working hours would be the application of significant political and cultural pressure on the part of the workers. All AI will do, assuming productivity gains are actually realized, is allow employers to reduce staff, since they can now get the same amount of work done by fewer people.

If technology-based productivity gains were going to reduce the amount of hours that most people worked, that would have happened long, long ago. AI is not some sort of breakthrough tech that is enabling something that wasn't possible before (as the article spins it). If it even delivers at all, its just another tiny step in a long journey of labor-need reduction that has resulted in nothing but the continual shrinking of the middle class and depression of worker wages since this country was founded.

Getting more for less will require legislation, and that's that.

I suspect that the team was given impossible goals to hit. Probably aggressive deadlines too. The same story everywhere.

I am not saying that makes it ok to cheat. I am just saying that problems like this start at the top, so being "really upset and losing confidence" is no evidence that leadership stands blameless for the team's failure.

So the observation here is that this trend of using AI instead of entry level people will, eventually, leave the job market empty of mid-level people, since nobody got the real-world experience that they need to become mid-level people.

Even if true, it still doesn't make sense for any individual business to hire and pay entry level people that they no longer need. If they do this, they are basically running a charity at that point, and likely violating their fiduciary duties. Each individual business needs to cut costs in whatever ways make sense for the health of the business. The problem of not being able to find the people they need isn't actually a problem until later.

So, even if every single business owner in the world reads these warnings and nods in agreement with them, they still have no incentive to hire entry level people. That would just increase their costs while allowing their competitors to keep their costs low. It wouldn't be rational for them to hire these people they don't need.

The most likely way this plays out (assuming it is actually true) is: when the day comes that mid-level people are needed but none are available, entry-level people will be hired instead, right into mid-level roles. Also, senior level people will be retained longer, paid more, possibly even invited out of retirement, to train and coach these entry-level people who are needed in mid-level roles.

There you go, problem solved. It might be a bit pricey when the day comes, quality and reliability might take a hit, but those costs will be felt industry-wide so all companies will at least be on equal footing.

At no point will warnings about a talent drought prevent any employers from using AI instead of humans as much as they possibly can.

I have studied the Bible in depth. I was referring to the Fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Bible, which is a popular one these days.

I am well aware that there are fringe groups (such as "universalists") who actually read the scriptures in original greek and point out fun facts like how Jesus never once even uttered the word "hell" and the entire doctrine is derived from some amazing mental gymnastics. Are you one of those? I certainly hope so, for you sanity's sake.

The Bible is an interesting source of information for historians, cultural historians, anthropologists, psychologists, mythologists, and even philosophers. So long as it is remembered that every word in it was put to paper by fallible human hands, of humans who lived in many different time periods and had many different motivations and didn't all agree with each other, then I don't have any more of a problem with it than I would with any other ancient text.

The moment you believe that a magical man in the sky used divine powers to ensure the accuracy of its very outlandish claims, that's where we part ways.