If you dig deeper, you'll find that AMD originally reverse engineered the *8080*, not the 8086. The two companies had entered into a cross-licensing agreement by 1976. Intel agreed to let AMD second-source the 8086 in order to secure the PC deal with IBM, who insisted on having a second source vendor.

There would have been no Intel success story without AMD to back them up.

(That actually would have been for the best. IBM would probably have selected an non-segmented CPU from somebody else instead of Intel's kludge.)

I once worked at a place that had a clean room process to create code compatible with a proprietary product. Anybody who had ever seen the original code or even loaded the original binary into a debugger was not allowed to write any code at all for the cloned product. The clone writers generally worked only off of the specifications and user documentation.

There were a handful of people who were allowed to debug the original to resolve a few questions about low-level compatibility. The only way they were allowed to communicate with the software writers was through written questions and answers that left a clear paper trail, and the answers had to be as terse as possible (usually just yes or no). Everyone knew that these memos were highly likely to be used as evidence in legal proceedings.

I highly doubt that any AI tech bros have ever been this rigorous, and I'd bet that most of these AIs have been trained on the exact same source code that they are cloning.

Have you ever heard a single person, including plumbing professionals, call them "copper-phosphorus pipes"?

No. Because that's not how the English language works. You're the one who is too lazy and ignorant to figure out how people actually communicate in society.

Hint: The systematization your mind wants to apply to everything is not absolute. You need to figure out when to relax the formal logic rules when they start to result in absurd outcomes.

I don't know if it's still strictly true, but they used to say that all of the antimatter that has ever been produced by humans has had enough combined energy to warm up a cup of coffee.

You win this year's Nobel Prize for pedantry.

So according to you, I can't call the water pipes in my house "copper", since 0.05% phosphorus was added to the material to accomodate brazing.

Why does this change make sense? Because you can't plant a flag and wave your dick if you're up there in zero G orbiting a planetoid.

You have to be standing on the surface, and that is what China is on track to do in a few years.

Apparently, people who don't want to be ominously "converted".

At least they should take this opportunity to think of better branding for their phone. "Fire Phone" is a terrible name for any product that contains lithium ion batteries.

However, I don't see how "all AI" is going to work out. Computers were invented because they made predictable, repeatable calculations. That's important for things like safety and security. People aren't going to be happy if their phone hallucinates a custom map giving them driving directions onto the runway of their local airport, or takes the initiative to wire all the money out of their bank account to the link in an incoming scam email.

This conundrum is the poster child of First World problems.

I originally thought that this website's decision to not allow new users to sign up was incredibly stupid and would result in a death spiral. Lately, though, I've started to think that there may be no other viable choice.

You assume the wrong sense of "identify account".

Hint: In this case, it is not synonymous with "classify".

Like I said, you just *assumed* the wrong sense of "identify". You still do.

The headline is not incorrect. It just doesn't contain the entire summary. You therefore made the assumption that the verb "identify" applied to the wrong thing.

Just like your original comment didn't say that you were talking only about the headline. That was supposed to be inferred by the reader by your context. Maybe you should have set forth your entire argument in your subject line.

We all know that you're not supposed to read the linked article before pontificating on a topic here. But going exclusively with the headline and not even skimming TFS is hardcore.

Dark matter, whatever it is, is known to be true. So far, nobody has found any interactions with electromagnetism.

My point was, a lot of people point at that situation and say: "We can't see it! So it must not exist, and you are stupid and ignorant for hypothesizing that it could exist!"