Isn't this the same number of years into the future we're always going to have flying cars and room-temperature superconducting?

Any reason SpaceX's Crew Dragon 2 isn't listed? You know, the one that is actually taking people into orbit and to the ISS (and bringing them back) on a regular basis?

If they are using FSK over phone, which is entirely possible from a technical point of view (it would have to be a standard supported by multiple organizations, etc), then they would almost certainly be using full duplex. That is, both sides transmitting tones at the same time. Also in that video it doesn't make sense they appear to be operating at two totally different baud rates.

He has been fooled by the smoke and mirrors, at least in this exact case:

It's at that moment a person with any insight into the matter should immediately realize that ChatGPT has never watched Fawlty Towers, thus it cannot form its own opinion of that show, as it doesn't know any of the nuance, from the production quality, the settings, the appearance of the characters, etc. Perhaps it may have been fed closed captioned text from the show (still very unlikely), but even so, consider the vast amount auditory and visual information about the show that a human would consume that ChatGPT has not.

That's when it should be realized ChatGPT is just parroting metadata about the show. Reviews, discussions about the show, etc, and has not even formed an "opinion" about the show for itself in any way.

Amazon holds the The Rings of Power over the Bond franchise now, so we know what to expect.

Correct me if I'm wrong (wait - this is Slashdot, so flame me if I'm wrong), but this tool is merely to visualize potential extensions and modifications to existing games. It is purely visual (IE video) extrapolating what a game would look like if you made certain changes to it, and is like watching a stream of someone else playing the game that you cannot control.

It is not actually creating anything useful, like meshes, textures or maps. It could be useful to test certain concepts quickly without having to commit to actually producing resources, or give some idea of a look or theme that the artists and designers could then head towards.

It's just another tool for developers. I originally wrote software in a text editor in one shell, compiled in another shell, and ran my program in a third. When IDEs and interactive debuggers came along it was a massive increase in efficiency of software development, but it did not lead to a sudden drop in the demand for software developers because we were more efficient.

The same can be said about every incremental step along the way (syntactic coloring, linters, automatic code deployment, on and on).

What AI is replacing for me, and speeding up my processes, is essentially in digging through documentation, API reference, and code examples, to more succinctly answer questions I may have.

A perfect example - I recently decided to re-implement some custom software of mine (a pretty decent sized Android application) to Qt so I could run it on many more devices (specifically on Raspberry Pis). ChatGPT and Gemini proved extremely valuable getting me off the ground and answering questions, vastly increasing my performance compared to dredging through documentation. I could ask questions about the pros and cons of using various APIs / paradigms within Qt and make much faster decisions with that distilled information.

Instead of looking at hello world examples, or trying to find the example projects that most closely exhibited the functionality I needed, I could ask for specific bits of code to be generated.

Still, there were a lot of missteps and incorrect answers provided by AI (it trying to use APIs, etc, that were deprecated or flat out mismatching versions of Qt was a big one I constantly battled, even when I explicitly told it to use version 6.8), but all in all I was able to produce that software in probably 1/2 to 1/3 the time prior to AI.

So it was just another tool that made my work more efficient, and in a very specific way it reduced the learning curve and got me up to speed in a large library / app framework I was not yet familiar with. In other words AI made me learn much faster than I would have the "old fashioned" way of pouring through documentation and code examples unrelated to the specific tasks I was trying to solve.

The massive COVID software development bubble burst, as represented by the graphs in the article. So the 5 year decline is totally expected and understandable.

What the article does not show in the various graphs are the months and years prior to the onset of COVID, which is what is meaningful to try to determine the real trajectory the profession was on. So I'm not really sure the point of the article stating the obvious (everyone scrambled for remote work and education during COVID causing a huge boom in software development, which has dropped consistently since then).

What I do not see in the graphs is an sudden drop off in the last two years triggered by AI advancement.

To the AI this was not cheating. Humans presented the AI with the ability to move the pieces via some formal API honoring the rules of chess, and then also gave the AI the direct ability to modify the positions of any of the pieces on the board, including the opponent's, without being bound by any of the rules of chess. By providing this explicit access, which the AI was made aware of, the door was opened for the AI to do this.

If I told you "Your task is to enter the next room. Here is a door with a complicated lock that you can pick. However there is also another door into the next room that is not locked." which would you choose?

A patent is a far greater, more involved, and higher protected legal construct than copyright. Saying "A patent at most" along with your statement that it cannot even enjoy a simple copyright protection is totally backwards.

If I patent software, then even if you completely implement "clean room" source code from scratch, but the end result duplicates the functionality I have patented, then you are violating that patent.

If source code is math, then the compiled binary output of that source code is still math, and arguably even purer math than the source code. So by your argument nothing about software should be allowed copyright in any way. Which is a bad idea, and thankfully not shared by our legal system.

If ChatGPT wrote that then you have truly demonstrated irony.

Youngling, I remember reading that 30 years ago when Java was new, and it's STILL being regurgitated. In reality, most every language has very well-written and optimized libraries available to do those things. If you have some custom loop you need to implement in the language, like iterating through a bunch of data, then you're just as responsible for not doing stupid things in that loop in Java as in C++. The advantage with other languages like C++ is you can manually manage your memory to make sure you are using registers and the like in your loop, as well as things like casting data to larger types (64 bit) to reduce the number of operations (especially anything binary).

If your software is so simple that you can do everything with boilerplate constructs and libraries (you're just sorting some arrays or running a DB query and then formatting out data) then what you're talking about is so trivial that, indeed, the language doesn't much matter.

See the difference?

I've seen servers attack printing presses and it isn't pretty. The ink gets everywhere.