You do know that insults where the other side has strong proof they are not true do not work, right? Well, probably that is already beyond you. ;)

Yup. This is precisely the situation. The investment bubble is undeniable. It is, however, not a given that it will collapse. Not all bubbles do.
But beyond the investment bubble- AI itself is very real.
When the dotcom bubble burst, it's not like e-commerce went away.
All the datacenters that were built- they didn't go away.
2 of my organizations datacenters were dotcom datacenters that were abandoned by Verio and picked up by us on the cheap, where we utilized them profitably for going on 2 decades now.

You're not an academic. You're a wannabe.
An academic doesn't deny reality in order to soothe their own cognitive dissonance.

Look at you- lol.
You construct this fantasy bubble around yourself where you did not just insult me while offering zero refutation of actual factual points I made (bun Rust rewrite)
And you continue to act as if that is not how we got here.
You are so fucking deluded. Again- if you teach anyone, it's a fucking crime for that institution to still employ you. But I'm betting it's not actually true. I'm betting maybe it was true at some time, and you can't get past the fact that they let you go long ago.

Your alzheimers seems to kick in just a few sentences after you start writing- it's incredible.

Can you breathe better with your head buried in the dirt?

lol- I know you are but what am I?
Your sub-100 IQ never ceases to amuse me.

So you have no refutation whatsoever to what I said... you could have just said that ;)

Well, that explains why the world is getting dumber.

You don't know shit. If you do indeed teach people, you are doing them a harm.

Heyyyyy, we agree on something.

I so very wish you were not full of shit.
But you are.
Even Anthropic's most eye-watering token cost is vastly cheaper than a developer salary in terms of work done per dollar.
The bun Rust rewrite for ~$160k in 11 days for what's estimated would have taken a team of developers a year pretty much settles it.
That's about 90% of my salary at about 5x my estimated performance.

For reference, bun was 535,000 lines of Zig.

Of course, it can't do all things this way, but imagine it had been done with GLM5.2 instead of Fable 5.
1/10th the cost.

I don't disagree that Rust has a kind of beautiful high level compsci view of things that is valuable, and even a pleasure to work within- even if it has the most atrocious fucking syntax ever invented.
However, what's the lifetime of an interrupt vector? A DMA register?
Bolting Rust to everything is a cancer. Sometimes its constraints are so fascist that it begs you to construct logically questionable code.
It solves memory safety, while introducing an entirely new class of vulnerability: Broken logic because someone was fighting with the borrow checker. The
That doesn't mean it's a net negative by any means, but it should throw a flag for people who bizarrely see the language as some kind of panacea.

If you want to see sloppy Rust, just search github for "unwrap".

It's true that the contract for whether or not a pointer is nullable cannot be enforced within the language, but if such a contract does exist in a codebase, and you don't follow it, I'm not entirely sure that's a logic error.
As for what C does and does not know about a pointer- it knows as much as you tell it.
int *[] is not the same as int **.
int * is not the same as int **
This can get a bit funky across function boundaries, but the function definitions restore the types, even if they have to be cast.
i.e.,
int arr[10];
fn((int **)&arr); void fn(int *arr[10]);
The "object which might not exist" sounds like you're talking about an optional.
I don't think it's fair to say, "C can't tell if your pointer is null, so a blind dereference of it is safe*". C would say, "you're free to blindly dereference this pointer if you want, but caveat emptor. A compiler that supports optionals knows what you're doing right now is unsafe and won't let you do it, a C compiler assumes you know.
For some domains, this is absolutely necessary.
I would rate your claims "broadly true, but broadly missing the point."

No, it absolutely does not.
It inhibits unsafe coding. Learn the difference.

Optimisers rely on you not writing code that utilizes undefined behavior, this is true.
However, -O0 - look at that. Gone.
Now you can compile this module that relies on undefined behavior to modify the interrupt vectors in this CPU safely, because the C compiler will do exactly what you told it to do.
If you're more advanced, you will know your compiler pragmas for disabling optimization of specific blocks of code, so that you can leave it enabled module-wide.

If clang and gcc did not do exactly what you asked it to do, even when that behavior is undefined, the operating system you are using right now would not work.

This is an invocation of the standard Rust "undefined behavior" bogeyman, and it tells me you don't actually know what you're talking about.
A thing may be "undefined" in C, but that does not mean that daemons may fly from your nose. It means "consult your CPU's manual".

C does precisely what you told it to do.
uint32_t *resetVector = 0;
printf("The reset vector is: %p\n", *resetVector);

Undefined behavior. C doesn't guarantee that does anything sane at all. Your ARM7TDMI does, however.

If you're a maintainer, then I suspect whatever you maintain fucking sucks.

I clearly explained the problem- that the quality of LLM-produced output is a function of the money spent to produce it (generally).
This means that the flood of slop PRs are produced by free-to-cheap models. This is only natural.
People who have no idea what they're doing aren't spending $300 for a large commit. They couldn't be bothered to invest the time in learning to code, they sure as fuck aren't going to invest in this.

Meanwhile, over here in real-life, dealing with real problems on maintained things that don't suck, I've got people making quality commits with LLMs on the daily. But they're part of the team, and they're paying real money for those commits.

In short, I think you're probably just full of shit. If you're not, I feel for whatever the fuck it is you maintain. You can't even apply basic logic to a problem.

As someone who is dealing with this problem, it's not that simple.

The problem with your assessment, is that there is no "the LLM".
LLMs come in a fucking vast spectrum of capabilities.
Put pretty simply, very expensive models do very good.
After very expensive, you get a spectrum from "pretty damn alright", to "outright terrible."

There is no "the LLM."
I can tell from your comment that you're talking out of your ass, and not actually dealing with this problem.

Most humans do. It can be difficult to find it though ;)