Just because code quality improves doesn’t mean the code looks like what a human writes. Currently AI code seems to not favor writing lots of functions, do it’ll basically expand out the same code in multiple places. Which I admit is also what jr programmers tend to do and maybe you can quality that as something that is code quality and will improve. You can frequently use a prompt to make it “don’t write the same code multiple times, define functions for anything repeated (maybe over a specific complexity)” & that reduces that issue.

I’ve noticed AI generated Swift tends to not use default arguments much, almost never uses custom operators, and uses unnamed method arguments way more frequently then most human written code. Sort of. A lot of example code and people showing things in forums and doing toy programs “in public” are similar which makes me guess those end up in training data sets more then signifiant works that do most of that stuff. Or I write atypical Swift, and have worked at places that do the same (in part because I get to set the coding standards at some of those companies!). At any rate I think _some_ AI code has “tells” which is largely independent form bug rate if not actually “code quality”.

As a practical issue commercial software is almost always closed code, so nobody can see the source and simply search for anything that might share code with anything they have copyright on. The open source code isopen. So if you have anything copyrighted you can search the open source to see if anything looks like it is worth filing a lawsuit over. Especially if you have a competing product. So if you are say Intel you can check to see if any of gcc is similar to Intel’s commercial compiler and sue claiming any recent declines in sales are directly related to gcc’s “blatant” infringement. Or if you have a non-compiler you can sue and just complain about common stanzas of code but not establish specific damages so it might be a less valuable lawsuit.

You could even sue if your closed source code got that line from AI as long as the employee that the source code control system claims they wrote that one themselves, and as long as your source code control system says that line was written before the open source project had it’s equivalent code (or if your lawyer doesn’t think to check those things, and the OSS’s lawyer doesn’t think to raise it in defense), so at least chances are rare that the OSS code invents the line and commercial closed source steels the line (via AI) and then claims the reverse happened.

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

Yep, even when AI generated code is human reviewed to determine that the code does what it looks like it should, and has no subtle issues (or only very very subtle ones!), you still have the huge legal issues (the exact ones you identified).

"And that's before you consider that TikTok and Slashdot are not remotely similar in their impact on people. "

Quantify this. What is this "impact" on people, and how are you measuring it?

You can do that, right? Because if you can't you're just another moron talking about how video games and rock lyrics and D&D are corrupting the minds of our youth.

You are posting to a social media site which many of us started participating it when it started, when we were "children." Your bootlicking is pathetic.

"What is the point of having a job, when you can not live from the wage?"

Sometimes it's to buy textbooks, or make extra money on the side, or to earn money during the summer so you can spend it during the rest of the year.

It's myopic to assume that all jobs are supposed to be full-time careers.

I just want to be clear about this: you believe the American middle class is smaller/worse-off than it was in the early 1900s?

Another person who needs to read Bastiat.

Do you think it would help the middle class to bring back the requirement for people to walk in front of cars waving a lantern?

Depends on how solvent NVIDIA thinks those companies will be. Also I think creditors frequently get paid earlier in a bankruptcy process (before investors at least). Maybe they have it structured like a mechanics lien where they get 100% of the loan back on bankruptcy (I don’t know if that is actually possible), or if they just huger that in a bankruptcy they will get about 80% of the loan back, so they want to make the loan as far ahead of bankruptcy as they can so they get a bunch of payments followed by bankruptcy and then they get a chunk of money awarded by the bankruptcy court (and/or maybe return of the assets?)

Ah! I think that is the one! I bet they are structured as a secured loan, so on bankruptcy the bankrupt company can either surrender the assets (the hardware Nvidia loaded you money for), and Nvidia keeps all prior payments. OR they sign a new agreement both the company and lender agree to which is then omitted from the bankruptcy discharge (i.e. the new agreement can’t be washed away by bankruptcy, so if you still owe say $3m Nvidia can stand firm on that price, or even knock a little off, but whatever is agreed to the bankruptcy court leaves it to stand -- normally, sometimes they will decide there is some sort of bankruptcy fraud going on and you are sheltering money with something like that, normally only if family or close friends are involved though), or the company going into bankruptcy can pay Fair Market Value for the property.

Nvidia might get screwed if companies going bankrupt decide it isn’t worth salvaging the AI hardware either because they pivot to a non-AI busness, or at least a busness where they don’t need Nvidia hardware (like they rent “AI compute” from Google or something, or only needed the Nvidia hardware to refine models and they decide to just run the models they already have and not refine anything).

Nvidia also might get screwed if lots of companies decide AI is BS and the fair market value for AI hardware declines.

Nvidia is also screwed if the whole AI market implodes for a similar reason.

Still it is pretty easy to see how Nvidia is taking a risk, but could “earn” way more money this way. Plus Nvidia gets the interest payments, not a bank (then again Nvidia is taking the risk, not a bank). I don’t know if it is a good idea or not, because it hinges on something I’m awful at predicting: timing. If the house of cards comes down soon Nvidia takes a big bath. If the house of cards stays up for a while Nvidia breaks even, if it stays up long enough Nvidia makes the even bigger bucks.

Actually it is debatable. Anthropic is not making money, they are burning through VC cash. OpenAI is not making money, they are burning through OPM (“Other People’s Money”) as well. NVIDIA _is_ making money selling the AI hardware to the various companies pouring money into finding an AI model+business model that lets them make money. SpaceX’s xAI isn’t usefully broken out into it’s own P&L, but if you want to bet there IK’ll bet they are losing money at the moment as well, if you take the bet and lose you owe me one fancy Starbucks coffee and pastry, if I lose I’ll buy you 5 shares of SpaceX (that is around $1000 vs your $10). Did I forget anyone? Palentier? Also OPM (VC at the moment).

I doubt Apple or Google are making money on AI either, although it is more debatable because they have a bunch of products they can bolster sales with it (people buying a new iPhone because they want something they saw “Apple intelligence” will bring, totally forgetting that Apple hasn’t delivered on their AI promises from 2 years ago yet!), or Google may sell more smart speakers “powered by Gemini” then they sold of their prior assistant powered speakers, or get more Google searches because of Gemini answers. Although I expect the searches will merely manage to better hold onto market share by offering Gemini, which is important, but defending a multibillion dollar a year Business isn’t at all the same a “making money with AI”. Google has definitly said they are cutting headcount by using AI, but I’m not sure if they actually have a productivity increase or merely an increase in code per unit time even if the volume says nothing (or is of lower quality so it produced more bugs per unit code, and more critical outages per unit codebut more volume of code fixes!)

I’m not saying that NVidia are the only ones that can ever make money at this, or that only the hardware makers will ever make money, but that is how it is right now for sure.

"If I say "all white people should die"

That is 100% protected speech, full stop, and is absolutely your right to express in a free and open society.

"I've always been pro free speech, but"

You can always just stop posting after the 'but' because it means that you are not in fact pro-free speech.

As I understand it Mythos’ “big leap” is not in finding specific flaws it is in chaining them together into a “bigger” flaw. So finding a minor issue in curl that lets you put a file where you shouldn’t, plus a flaw in something that assumes some file location is “safe” and it doesn’t have to parse things with an advassery in mind, plus a flaw in something that relies on that thing, and so on.

When doing that kind of security work you don’t need to find a bunch of significant flaws in each tool, just a minor flaw in places that turn out to be useful when combined with say up to 9 other minor flaws. So from the viewpoint of cUrl which doesn’t rely on a lot of other tools to provide its services nothing has changed. The pain is experienced on a wider scale like over a whole OS where there are a lot of tools any of which might contribute a minor flaw so Mythos can find way to gain “the prize” (maybe remote execution, or a privilege escalation, or both).

Maybe a better way to think about Mythos is it doesn’t have to hyper focus on one tool like “can I break into the system using cUrl?” (and is not actually any better at that question then prior AI), but it does a far far better job at answering the question “can I break into the system using up to a dozen or so flaws together out of this pool of 1000+ tools?”. I assume it may be a bit better at finding flaws in single tool if the flaws require putting more bugs together or more steps to reach the state where an existing flaw shows up, but again that isn’t the big deal. The big deal is at a system level it puts multiple sub-critical flaws together to combine into a critical flaw. (queue transformers joke here)

Is Cuda a lock in because there is a critical mass of solutions written in Cuda and people that think about problems in terms of Cuda already so nothing is really going to unseat it that isn’t a close clone of Cuda and making one of this is for some reason impossible, or is the problem that you can make something else that lets you be expressive in the imprint ways Cuda is while giving the backend the same kind of flexibility to schedule operations, but nobody else has made one that isn’t “too buggy” to use on real world problems?

In the distant past very few C/C++ complies existed, they were “too complex” for small companies to make, and now we have very few commercial compilers and a billion open source projects that are all forks of gcc or llvm (or a fork of a fork of the llvm derived clang). We don’t have a billion non-C derived programming environments though (we have a few, JavaScript is popular, and I’ll argue Java is C-derived, although removing pointers form C doesn’t leave a lot, so I’ll also accept it as a distinct environment, but if so, so is Swift, and Rust also counts as distinct...still that is only handful). It doesn’t prove a lot, but I would say even the moat of a programming language and environment only lasts so long.

Do you actually believe that? I mean, yeah sure “we asked them what was up and they gave a flimsy excuse” doesn’t mean you have to believe it!

The only thing that points towards them maybe telling the truth is it might be obvious if the data center were operating and you don’t want to get caught in a provable lie. However it is also possible the data center is partly operating while construction continues and they figure “hey there aren’t people coming and going, who will know if the data center is operating as opposed to testing equipment if we get caught!”.