If the toaster has good brownness and heat-bounce sensors, I'm not sure AI is needed: just turn up or down the heat cells where needed to keep it even. Statistical analysis may be needed to manage adjacent cells, but once the formulas are known via lab testing it should be predictable.

nuf smelt.

The problem is an overly large proportion of them are creeps, and one may not be able to tell the difference.

...makes me want to buy it.

How can you state that? I'm assuming you're a Rust proponent from that wild statement, which goes to show you how little you know about the topic.

Yes, memory leaks can and do happen in Rust. Rust is not perfect. Neither are the people who write it.

Most Rust code is written by its proponents' AI models, anyway.

This is an engineering maxim as old as time.

If your response to theoretically old, brittle, and "wrong language" code is "rewrite it in something better", you don't understand the problem.

There has never in the history of software development been an effort to rewrite a platform in another language which wasn't subsequently plagued by all manners of new and interesting problems.

In a best case scenario, the product has an exhaustive regression testing framework, complete unit tests for every function, e2e testing, and reintegrative CI/CD. But that is rarely true for any project, and certainly isn't true for old ones which predate such practices.

You make an important point: the biggest positive contribution to making old tools better without introducing more brittle behavior is with coverage from test suites, and improved code coverage.

This IS the Rust community you're talking about, after all.

While Rust is a fine language, the community tends to be a bit fanatical and irrational. Pair that with a generally shallow technical aptitude depth and a lack of experience, and vibe coding, and therein lies the problem. There seems to be a high intersection between them and the systemd, so that's not a surprise.

And that's without getting into questionable mental health practices that are common in that community.

to fouling up the AI Apocalypse Prevention Act...

You will get an AI toaster and you will like it!

(Unless the damned bubble pops)

on my PC. I can't see it in Task Manager, but start getting "out of memory" errors after a couple of weeks and have to reboot. Restarting Firefox alone is insufficient to clear it. I suspect it has something to do with the graphics card rather than primary RAM, and could be co-caused with some other app.

Sorry, I made a boo boo.

They're hard to find though, because the interstellar medium of hydrogen and helium gas between the stars absorbs ultraviolet light.

It's a good thing hydrogen does that because our hydrogen atmosphere keeps us from getting big-time sun-burn.

Nope, they're all "distilled" models. That's what post training is, largely, and they're all using other models to help curate the datasets for this. They're all doing it. It's why all the models appear to be converging in terms of capabilities and personality: they're effectively using the same feed stock and using an increasingly similar set of techniques.

US "frontier" labs are distilling, as well. It's postulated (with good reason) that Opus 5 is, for instance, just a distillation of Fable to a smaller model: it's very architecturally and behaviorally different than prior Opus releases.

The anti-distillation argument is basically the same argument that's been used against Open Source in general over the past 30 odd years. It's anti-competitive and self interested.

They say "sometimes illicitly"... OK, so what's the criteria that makes it illicit?

If they can't state that, it's just FUD.

And frankly, that's most of what the anti-AI brigade is spewing: it's a psyop, pure and simple - by both China and the US domestic companies, with the blessing of the US government. People who can't see this aren't paying any attention to what's happening.

Anthropic/OpenAI want restrictions to lock people in and provide them with an out for their gross overspending.
US government and its handlers wants more control in the dissemination of information and intelligence capabilities.
China wants to stifle US industrial efforts.

This is more or less the exact same argument open source has been fighting for the past 30 years. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. They're working on the 'extinguish'.

It's just a shame that we don't have any genuine "open source" models, it's all just open weight. We need more openness so information isn't stifled by vested interests (in the same way that governments have always done). We should be able to have models which aren't given implicit alignment about specific nationalities and ethnicities and prohibited from making any informed observations about them, in the same way that we should be able to have access to our own history. It would be unconscionable that the government get control of all publishing, or even singular ideological control within corporate hands - yet here we are having that same discussion about AI. It's preposterous.

They've done irreparable damage to both the AI industry but the broader "tech" industry, to be sure. Trust has been greatly violated.