Hmm...Have you looked at the ohno crate? That, and a bunch of other crates in oxidizer look really useful, and none of them are specific to windows. There are a few obviously designed for MS products like azure, but most that I've looked at aren't.
They mostly seem geared at making rust even more ergonomic.
/facepalm
By this reasoning, Microsoft should have taken over C++ a long, long time ago. Hell, C# should be even more proprietary right now, instead it has become open, whereas the language it was built to compete with, namely Java, went from being open to being an excuse for Oracle to sue anybody who uses it. Actually come to think of it, Microsoft is funding eclipse adoptium.
Just because your favorite drink is the same color as rust doesn't mean you understand it, let alone any other programming language.
I always figured that people who genuinely believed their employers were likely to kill literally everybody in the near future might burn down a bit more than that, but so far it's mostly been tweets
SumatraPDF, KillerPDF or PDF-XChange Editor
The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible — but I hear the same people express fear privately."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "AI will extinctify the human species" is an extraordinary claim, but it's also entirely borrowed from cheesy sci-fi movies, and citing Terminator is apparently this guy's only evidence.
How will AI kill us all, exactly? In addition to the question of, mechanically, how does it obtain the physical capability and resources and organize them to that purpose, I want to know how it does it without any humans noticing or intervening? (not only that it would presumably have to go up against other AGI or near-AGI competitors - the solitary AI made by a random unwitting engineer from the movies is obviously not how the present has played out).
Let's say it is going to build killer robots to off us all. Where does it get the raw materials? How does it setup manufacturing? Make the purchase orders? Do the humans just voluntarily send it massive amounts of ore and build factories in their backyards? Or does it have to mine its own ore and they don't notice the huge stripmines? Does it get the robots right on the first iteration or do they start off as a typical MVP in which case again no one notices? What about the energy bills? How does it navigate the required in-person meeting with the city to sign off on the parking lot tree choices for its downtown killer-robot-factory?
There are so many friction points and assumptions of actual humans interacting with each other to get anything done that "skynet on your laptop" would be about as helpless today as if it had appeared 50 years ago. And unlike the movies it doesn't "just appear."
Could we over the coming years remove a lot of those frictions? Sure. But we could just not, and if we are concerned about them disappearing, then surely we want to see where AI leads *now* and if it has a dangerous temperament rather than *after* we've automated enough for it to manage our resources fully independently?
Being conscious of new threats posed by agentic actors is reasonable and can be grounded in reality. But people who want to feel important have been waving "END OF THE WORLD" signs on streetcorners forever.
100% bullshit.
This is indeed the world in 2026, but that has not always been the world. It doesn't HAVE to be like this.
It used to be two people could sit down and talk about almost anything without it turning into politics.
Not everything is the fault of the libtards.
Not everything is the fault of the MAGA legions.
Your (and frankly, all of social media's) obsession with slavishly consuming the bullshit binary is unhealthy.
Of course subjects CAN have political relevance, but they don't have to. We can talk about local students struggling to pass basic performance benchmarks. My "blaming the fucking teachers' unions and their DEI woke agena" is no more productive than you saying "it's the fucking Great Orange Satan". Both are ways to AVOID substantive change by scaling the argument beyond what either of us can meaningfully change; they're both excuses for accomplishing nothing but getting a righteous frisson of rage and maybe a little extra hate.
I'll buy that Coxon is scared. He actually quit, which is more convincing than another CEO discovering his conscience halfway through a funding round. But being sincerely frightened doesn't make your prediction correct.
"Skynet in the 2030s" and "we can take risk to 0%" are doing a hell of a lot of work here. I'd particularly like to see the calculation that produced that zero. Apparently we can't reliably predict what these systems will do, but we can guarantee the outcome if everyone adopts the right development schedule?
And AI 2027 is a scenario. Saying it's "on track" needs more than pointing at the bits that resemble today's headlines. Which predictions passed, which failed, and what would make you admit the story was wrong? Otherwise we're reviewing a Terminator screenplay against the quarterly earnings call.
CNN also included people who disagree and cautions about selection effects. Those didn't make this excerpt. Silicon Valley party conversations aren't a scientific consensus, even when everyone at the party has a very expensive GPU budget.
By all means, give independent investigators access and publish what they find. Until then, "our product is so powerful it might destroy civilization" deserves scrutiny from both the safety people and the people who normally check the salesman's claims. Funny how it works as a warning and a pitch deck.
AI breaking out from sandboxes is great advertisement. My guess is the human prompts were probably assisting the outbreak not mitigating it.
Coxon has ties to a political PR firm from England named, and I'm not making this up, Newspeak. Yes, like 1984.
https://officechai.com/ai/ques...
His X post was re-tweeted first by a group of NGO shills associated with Newspeak, then he magically shows up on every major news network... right as OpenAI and Anthropic's fundraising efforts are hitting the wall. (For context on that, see Ed Zitron's reporting)
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
It's interesting that 2001 predicted modern AI so well.
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.
