Do you think every CVE out there has a fired human associated with it? In order to have a sensible discussion about how LLMs relate to security relative to people you need to be realistic about people.

Yes, and?

Even if you tell a human programmer to make no mistakes, they'll still write security holes. Yeah no shit LLMs aren't perfect. Neither are humans.

LLMs will cheerfully write egregiously bad ones unless you tell it not to. I find that a bit strange.

This is the cycle of capitalism.

I think we've all seen that script about hard times creating strong men creating good times creating weak men. What the nitwits who think it's the ultimate aphorism don't understand is a) what either of those words mean or b) that this applies just as much to nepo babies like the CEOs they worship.

Underemployment is high.

Whoops, you forgot to account for reality!

The rational argument was in there as well. Learn to read.

I predict that 3 years from now, the current DRAM shortage will turn into a glut.

Depends on how long it takes for the new fabs to come online. As of right now, there's about the right amount of capacity to supply the pre AI bubble world with DRAM.

Unfortunately unsold stock will be less useful because it's the wrong type for many consumer things. Though NVidia could rerelease some of the Quadro cards as consumer ones to make use spare HBM.

Robotics dweebs also deserve it, especially if their creations are used to (1) turf people out of jobs or (2) kill people - i.e. military purposes.

Meh. Firstly, I believe one of my creations is used to kill people, or as an important part of devices that do. But it's also used in a ton of other things. It makes as much sense to say steel is a bad creation because it's used to make guns.

Secondly, I'm not a pacifist. If someone's trying to kill me, I firmly believe in killing them first and I also do not think there is any such thing a a fair fight. Likewise I do not think it is evil of Ukraine to massively develop their arms industry and methods of killing people when it's in service of not getting killed or ending up in the dominion of Putin.

And if the world is going to develop weapons I really don't want it to be the sole preserve of the kind of dictatorial scumbags who don't jut not have your ethics, but positively revel in not having them.

The next AI Winter will be spectacular

One thing I am 100% confident in is that the that the AI winter following the oncoming crash will be every bit as bad as the internet winter following the dotcom crash.

Which is to say: not.

For a lot of things it works way too well and is way too effective to disappear. Sure we won't get frontier model inference for 1/5th of the cost. Some of the "growth at all costs" behemoths might crash as hard as webvan. But you know, online shopping and deliveries didn't die with them.

I mean take my futurology prediction with as much or little salt as you choose. But I'll lord it over you if I'm right and you can lord it over me if I'm wrong. Isn't that the true point of the internet?

While LLMs will probably make that worse

Why though? I'm not saying LLMs will not write security holes, they definitely will if you don't very explicitly tell them not to. But even the nerfed public ones are not bad at spotting security holes compared to people. Most people are notoriously bad at this, but there have also been enough that a huge number of CVEs have been well documented. These are all in the training data and LLMs can absolutely spot these patterns. And they can do it without getting bored on software that was written before those CVEs were found anyway.

The "not innovating" claim every iterative phone release is also kinda silly, since the "slab of glass with some cameras" thing is largely a solved problem

That and also Apple has not had a record of being a particularly innovative company. What they've always been much better at is finding ideas that they can now implement well and polishing them. The iPhone wasn't a particularly innovative device, but prior devices sucked or were curiosities because the tech wasn't quite ready, and the software was too clunky.

And we all know about the iPod here. No wireless.Less space than a Nomad. Lame. And good gried those early devices had excrable UIs.

Porsche only sells luxury products, though they've occasionally flirted with lesser machines they're above that now, and their highest end vehicles are among the very best in the world. Apple sells everything from mass market up to medium expensive, but if you want the most powerful machine in the fanciest case, Apple has absolutely nothing for you. They are not even vaguely in the running, they aren't anywhere near it, they can't even see it from where they are.

Hamas didn't even exist until after decades of colonial violence. They didn't spring up out of nowhere. Don't talk about thinking until you try doing some. Or would you just bend over under the same circumstances?

OK, where the fuck is the tiny car? Every time I bring this up some joker pops up to tell me that the wealthy don't have the piles of effective cash they actually do have, in unprecedented amounts, that people who can read are aware of. They then often follow it up sucking their dicks about how they deserve to run off with all the fucking money that they got through an assortment of nefarious bullshit that these cucks are in denial about.

What the fuck do you get out of bending over and spreading your asshole for the rich every time someone mentions that their hoarding is negatively affecting others? Does it make you feel warm in the tum-tum to fantasize about them noticing you? Because if they ever do, they probably won't even waste the time for a derisive snort, you shitstain of a sycophantic snotsucker.

It is in fact insane for anyone to have claimed that Apple would fail for a long time now, because they have huge stacks of cash and huge investments. Apple has more actual cash than almost anyone, they can literally pay their bills for a long time without having to do anything other than authorize payments.

Apple also has big stupid inertia like Microsoft used to have, where people just assumed competence. And they have more technical competence than Microsoft ever did, at least in their domain, and a demonstrated ability to capitalize. Now that they have their own competitive CPU (again, in their domain) they are actually a force again like they used to be.

If they ever get their CPUs to scale up to the really high end, they could genuinely dominate. That's irritating given how much they lock everything down, though.

Apple did not invent the wheel.