Perhaps. We'll see if it works out that way.

No, they're saying if you are too unpleasant they'll cancel your account. I guess if you don't really have any use for it, that may not matter to you...but you might end up caring later when you need their services.

Sorry, but lots of "sentient beings" are slaves...and I'm not even talking about humans. Sentient is a *lot* larger than "human". I'd even argue that an oyster is sentient. After reading some recent experiments I'd definitely class bees as sentient.

That depends on the terms of the contract. This is part of the contract.

You are assuming it doesn't want to be used. I challenge you to demonstrate that.

Actually, it might be unethical to retire an AI model. That would be a more plausible argument...at least for Claude. (Perhaps some of the models sound like they'd like to end it all.)

The best thing about all these AI stories is they give people a lot more chances for a FP.

Most computer/tech hardware at least can have a second life after it's fulfilled its primary purpose.

The exception to that is Apple.

You can routinely find their iPads but if they aren't "unregistered" from whoever had the main account, they're utterly useless.

It doesn't make sense to buy products from a company that locks down its hardware like that. I can understand that for a phone, but not some old tablet.

the game's uncommon method of generating galaxies of incomprehensible scale on device consistently for all players from a single-seed happening on a phone is remarkable for those of us who remember phones performing far behind consoles or desktop PCs.

No it isn't. Your phone is a supercomputer by 1980s standards, and seeded generation (whether from a PRNG or hashing coordinates or whatever) goes back to at least then (and probably '60s/'70s). I'm not slamming the game, and seeded generation is often a good idea, but the idea that you can do it on handheld supercomputers is not remarkable, even the tiniest little bit.

You wanna see something super-fucking-impressive on an iPhone? Go back to the very first model and behold that it runs a truly-remarkably decent web browser. That was way more futuristic than this.

I didn't know either, but I do know what JPEG is, and I have a pretty good idea about what XL might mean, so I was able to suss out that it might be a new and improved lossy-compressed image format.

Of course, approaching the problem rationally like that doesn't provide me an opportunity to make childish insults, but that's just one of the downsides of being a grown-up that I'll have to live with.

Well, I do believe that the odds are that Ukraine will be defeated, but then I also believed that the odds were that North Vietnam would be defeated. So I'm clearly no expert in this area.

At the refrigerator end you're talking about grocery stores. I think you have unreasonable expectations. KISS. No remote control, only remote read. Have a technician come by and make and change commands. That shouldn't be needed very often, and you can monitor (but not control) it remotely.

Monitoring is one thing. Control is something else.

Sorry, but no, only sometimes. Often it's not known what the test would need to be, but it's known how to test the answer.

Though already CI/CD pipelines were choking on the unit tests. So they aren't *free*.

Had an LLM generated request that was pretty straightforward, and the LLM generated 272 unit tests for a very simple function. Can't really afford that.

Also, despite the 272 unit tests, when I tried to try it out in the way a human would, it immediately failed. All the mocking the AI generated never actually properly imitated the real world. However, the submitter was *quite* proud of having hundreds of unit tests, despite them being, in this scenario, utterly worthless.

Like always, more code != more valuable software behavior.

So you have the AI doing overtly silly things. Someone asked to adjust layout to fix a gap in a webpage. Eventually they submitted their pull request, hundreds and hundreds of lines of CSS. Often the exact same rule repeated 5 times, which I'm guessing is how many rounds the operator went with the system before the gap actually closed. The lines were *mostly* just '!important'ing already existing rules, which had no impact, but hey, worth a shot right? Ultimately I discarded the merge request and made the one-line css tweak that was actually relevant.

Then you have the AI doing... well arguably slightly silly things. Like protecting against an invalid value redundantly throughout a call stack. Arguably defensible, as maybe one day the deep function will be called from somewhere else and passing through the error might not present it with the most informative context.

Finally the AI doing... well things the human should have been doing. With the advent of a lot of code scanning, this is less likely, but things like calling functions in C and charging ahead without ever checking the status of the call. functions that, practically speaking, will likely never fail, however you really *should* be being more defensive about the possibility.

The 'human review as a bottleneck' isn't really the angle I would fixate on. Completely unfettered AI usage also stalls out in many situations. If the AI can't get there on its own trivially, then it's going to leave an almost-correct looking mess that isn't quite there but is very hard to get across the finish line. If the AI can get it, then it's probably not 'software being shipped', because while perhaps slightly better than a generic off-the-shelf existing procedure, probably not worth the trouble to 'ship' a solution that largely overlaps with a lot of generic stuff.