Yes, but now you have it too complicated for 95% of the vibe coders. So they simply won't do it. Because skipping all of those steps still results in something that compiles.

They fuck up spreadsheets as well. A truckload of business-critical spreadsheets have errors in them that often go undetected for years.

It's hard enough to get actual developers to properly consider security. Not surprised at all that vibe coders don't.

Plus, of course, most of the training data is insecure to begin with.

But let them learn by fire that there's a reason actual programmers take time to ship a product, and it's not that the AI can type faster.

We used to hold all the keys to the kingdom. Now, anyone with a modicum of AI skill can write prompts to do what we do and spoil our gravy train.

Problem is: We don't even know what consciousness is.

So the best we can say is if something creates the impression of having one, based on whom we attribute consciousness to, i.e. other humans. Well, big surprise that a model explicitly trained on human language and texts creates that impression. It does show just how good the models are. At pretending to be human because they have a shitload of examples on what humans would say.

For all we know, the gas clouds on Jupiter could be conscious, just in a way that is completely baffling to us. We can't rule it out because we don't know what consciousness is, so we can't test for it.

Not true.

An attacker may have a limited window. He might exploit some other vulnerability to do some operation with privileged access rights, but not have an admin shell.

You're not saying?

But they take security so seriously. They said. They promised. This time for real. No, this time. Ok, next time.

Never mind security, will a model that gives ordinary people the ability to make a lot of money in the stock market be torpedoed?

It's just people playing ArcticFox on an Amiga 1000.

This.

Whenever a politician claims that something is "to protect the children", you can be 100%, absolutely certain that it is not about the children.

Oh, that's trivial: a) it's made-up nonsense, b) it tells people how to live their lives and c) it's been around for so long that people forgot that it's made-up nonsense.

None of that or the rest of your answer has anything to do with the point I was making: That "accepted as a religion in the USA" isn't much of an argument. If people can get Jedi accepted as a religion, it just proves how meaningless all of that is. Other countries have correctly identified Scientology as a pyramid scheme and a scam.

The fact that other religions would qualify for that as well doesn't make it any less true.

Yeah, but isn't the bar for that ridiculously low in the US? Like the Jedi "religion" being tax-exempt on religious grounds? And there's no discussion that that one is based purely on fiction.

No, I did not. These are features that exist for my convenience, not as mass surveillance tools. The government is abusing them.

Yes, if you have control of the cell towers. Or run an IMSI catcher. But the technological solution applied is not the question. The question is if we want someone as untrustworthy as our governments to be able to constantly track us.

The fact that you personally maybe don't care doesn't give you the right to opt-in all of us who might care. The problem is that once the technology exists, it will be abused. It already is. If we explicitly allow it, abuse will run rampant. We already have examples of cops using surveillance tech to spy on their spouses, or to stalk that cute girl from the bar. We have tons of examples of surveillance permissions granted for one purpose being used for another one. When the government wants these laws it's always to find child abusers and terrorists. But that is never what they actually have in mind.

Boils down to one thing:

Teach them.

Homework doesn't teach them - that's "independent learning" which, though a skill, isn't something you can really instil in them, but which they have to bother to learn themselves... it's also, incidentally, how private schools achieve results. They encourage independent learning, and they more use it to PREPARE, rather than after-the-lesson chores. "This is what we'll be doing next week, read up on it now so I don't have to explain all the minutiae when we get to that part."

But without a teacher in the class, the significance of where/what they learn is diminished and turns learning into a chore. The biggest assets in a school - any school - are not budgets, facilities, fancy tech... it's parental motivation, and teacher skill. Private schools already have parental motivation ("I lose 30k if you mess about", says Dad, and the school won't tolerate you risking their 600k of tuition income across that class just to keep your 30k).

His last paper was a multi-year study on the different methods to teach boys and girls science (especially physics) and maths in Kuwait (where they have segregated classes for such things) to achieve best results for each... I'll see if I can dig it out.

Well... I think "delivered" is stretching it somewhat.

So far only Pepsi has some hand-built models. It's gonna be years before their earliest larger orders are even close to being fulfilled.