You think picking someone who will fight your religious enemy is a sign that you think highly of them?

Both. Idiocy isn't all on one side, and neither is evil. And neither is self-serving action.

It's Covid/Two Weeks to Flatten The Curve/The Terrorists/SARS/9-11/The Russians!/The Nazis - all over again.

Just reactionary FUD to try to herd sheep into a specific direction.

This shit can't be trusted.

Popular opinion is poor evidence.

It's a research program so, yes "That doesn't mean LLMs *will* deliver AGI". But what are your grounds for being certain taht it won't?

Even if it were sentient, it would be acting as the agent of the company that was running it, so they would still be to blame.

If you don't like "reward", say "positive feedback". It means the same thing, except for being more formally defined.

LLMs cannot have inherent values, because they don't know that anything besides text exists. Specialized pixel editors have similar problems.
Robots will at least understand the the external reality exists, so perhaps they could have inherent values.

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.

If things were to otherwise stay the same, then it would. They won't. Some descendant of "vibe coding" will become the dominant mode within 20 years. Probably a *lot* sooner. Next year wouldn't really surprise me.

Also, Rust is more complex to use than C, so a small program is much better in C. And a large program is probably better in either C++ or Python(with a lot of library calls).

I don't like Rust, so I'm probably not being fair to it, but I struggle to identify a good use case. (Personally, I'd rather use Forth than Rust.)

Note however "will be", not "is". It's not there yet.
Then you have the problem of getting the right standards.
Then you have the problem of getting the right specs.
Then you have the problem of getting the right problem. ...
There's probably an end to this somewhere, but I doubt that it will be in perfection.

Nobody can write safe code. People, can, however, test the code they write, and if there is a comprehensive test suite, fix it so that it works safely. Debugging is mandatory!