Yes, this seems to be in a pre-prototype stage. That means it can go either way, from "ready in 5 years" to "needs 10-30 years more materials science" to "does not work after all". What you really want is a prototype that has run at least to the first maintenance interval point, i.e. several years. Before there are too many unknowns.

Even if _everything_ goes well, that is 25 years in the future or more.

The idea seems to have merit, but you only really know how far from real-world deployment they are after they have run a prototype for a couple of years. I seem to be unable to find whether thy have one or not. Does anybody know?

And more clueless bullshit. There are no "false premises" in the model used. In fact, if you change the model, it is not the halting problem anymore.

Seriously, admit you are wrong and move on. Because you have absolutely nothing. You only show that you do not understand computability at all.

That bad? That is really overdoing it.

Just as dangerous, toxic and stupid. But there are too many useful idiots supporting the respective cult.

Indeed, there is. And a lot of it is legal. For example, all the religious texts and a lot of Science. Now the problem is not with the data on the internet. The problem is that LLMs make it easy to find, easy to get a (faux) understanding and easy to get the idea that doing some things is a good idea by stripping out warnings and context and making things appear simple.

Your claim is insightless and of negative worth. What we are talking here are tings like chainsaws without safety features, cars without brakes, electrical appliances that can easily electrocute you and toasters that occasionally explode, and things like that.

Product safety is a thing, mostly because of idiots like you. Because people like you ridicule the whole thing until they get hurt. Then they come crying and demand the most outrageous compensations and punishments.

Nice. Even funnier if realize how many people are actually going to believe crap like that.

Not true. Just the same as with the theist fuckups, devil worship often has really undesirable side-effects.

You might want to be careful with that. A lot of people do not do murder because they are too dumb to get away with it and sort-of know that. If you give them ideas how to do it that they are not competent enough to see the flaws in and hence go ahead thinking the approach you provided will work, you may well find yourself an accessory. Especially if you run into a prosecutor in the process of preparing a political career or one that is a true believer.
 

Anybody willing to defend this behavior? And if you do, remember this is a product that has been "optimized" for 3 years at this time. Seems to be getting worse instead of better if you ask me.

And then the actually competent attack where subtle exploitable flaws and well-camouflaged backdoors get embedded in the model. I have a suspicion that may already have happened.

Fun fact: If you have such a thing in a model, the only way to fix it is to completely throw it away and do a full new training. Yep, the MBA morons will surely be willing to spend that money...

Yep, funny how the same tired old ideas still work because people are so completely incapable of doing things right.

Look at the abysmally stupid mess Crowdstrike made. Or how exchange online got hacked for all (!) customers in 2021 and in 2023 (when an outside party noticed) Microsoft did not have the security logs anymore that would have allowed them to find out what happened. And numerous other massive screw-ups that can only be called utterly pathetic.