Not true. Sorry, but that is my area of expertise. Things are insecure because they are cheaply or incompetently made, configured and operated, often all of that.

... always a bad idea. With LLMs, basically incompetent people can hack all instances of such a device everywhere for cheap now.

I doubt the person you answered to has the capacity to understand that.

Obviously, when used correctly, even mu-calculus on stone tablets can be easily used to demonstrate the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis!

Yes, very much so. But that would be good engineering and good engineering is rare in the software space.

Hehehe, stupid is as stupid does. That is why real mathematicians verify a proofs before they build on the result.

I had students try that out in some thesis work. Results were that LLMs find some types of vulnerabilities reasonably reliably and others not at all or only rarely.

Nonsense. The real problem on display here is that you have no clue how to produce quality code.

Because you just have to pay the same number of coders even if more are code reviewers not, but you pay for the LLM on top of that as well. I am sooo not surprised. And, apparently, reviewing LLM code is mind-numbing and far more unpleasant than reviewing human code. Hence there is another really bad problem in there.

Similar thing in Japan. The food isn't expensive either.

I wouldn't want them to be relying on AI to do reviews though. Maybe two AI, looking only for issues and reporting them back, like you can have AI look for security issues with computer code. And a proper review done by a human.

I have a feeling that if they did that, the AI would flag up loads of critical, may lead to meltdown issues that are uneconomical to fix and deemed to unlikely to be worth spending money on. Which incidentally lead to both Chernobyl and Fukushima being far, far worse than they might have been. Both cheaped out on the containment building. Fukushima's were inadequate, Chernobyl didn't even have any because the risk of an explosion was deemed so low.

Firstly Starfleet Academy is set centuries after TNG and DS9, at a time when the Federation is trying to rebuild after the devastation of The Burn. The Academy has only just re-opened and started taking new recruits, and with the galaxy still recovering the feed of already accomplished cadets just isn't there.

That said, the TNG version in particular was ridiculous. They apparently traumatized cadets as much as possible to see if they were worthy of joining. Aside from not every cadet having the same traumatic experiences to draw on, that's just cruel and ignores the fact that the whole point of the academy is to prepare students for that kind of thing.

In SA the cadets are expected to be at the top of their game... Once they have been taught how to do that. We see them improving throughout the first season, until they are finally able to work well as a crew (under the leadership and supervision of Reno and other officers). Of course there is also an emotional and coming of age journey there, because that's what happens to young adults. Most Western militaries are aware of this and cater for it, as do universities.

Ake left Starfleet because she saw what it had become because of The Burn, and didn't like it. She accepts that was a mistake, and she should have tried harder to put it right instead of walking away. That's a great story and the reason she was chosen to lead the Academy - she both remembers Starfleet before The Burn from her long lifespan, and is strongly motivated to make sure the next generation of officers learn from her mistakes. That's also why she wants to recruit Caleb.

The rest is just because it's a TV show. We aren't there to watch lectures, and most of what they teach is made up pseudo-science anyway. Learning how to operate an imaginary starship that works however the writers say it does isn't very interesting for the audience. It's the same with the cadets getting into so much danger (and they do use the holodeck extensively when possible) - it's like how for some reason the various Enterprises we have seen over three seasons get into highly improbable situations literally every other week. On TNG they have families aboard, but regularly end up with the ship and everyone's lives on the line.

That's how TV works. Real life is repetitive and boring, so TV doesn't try to be realistic.

That's the wrong way of looking at it. You could make the same argument about airbags. The Takata airbag recall was a huge disaster, cost billions to put right, and ended up with them going bankrupt. But airbags do save lives and prevent serious injury. On balance, even with the recall of millions of vehicles, they are worth having.

Matrix headlights do increase visibility a lot. The really good ones are fantastic. Reliability seems to be decent enough, so very likely the benefit outweighs the cost.

And you pulled that lie right out of your ass, correct?

No, neither OpenAI nor Anthropic are anywhere near "breaking even". And they will never get there.

Many cars have a dial you can use to adjust the headlights based on the number of passengers and amount of cargo. Hardly anyone even knows it exists, let alone uses it.

Then you have auto high beams, which are supposed to turn off when another car is coming but tend to react far too slowly. Teslas are terrible for it, but I've never seen a particularly good implementation. They need to turn the high beams off when headlights become visible around a corner or over a crest, not a few seconds after they are directly in front of your vehicle and the other driver has already been blinded.

Finally you have matrix headlights, which again are supposed to block the beam that is shining towards on-coming traffic, or the backs of same direction traffic. It tends to work better but also has reaction time issues.

Indeed. And they will also find out that running your own specialized models with your own safeguards (!) and result verification outside of the LLM is the only good way to get result quality that actually can (maybe) meet reasonable engineering and other standards. General LLMs are a cool stunt, but a really bad idea if you do real work.