Weak signals over a long distance. You may as well try to listen to people whispering in China from the US.
(Why would a civilization dedicate a large amount of resources, say 1,000+ nuclear power plants, to send a very narrow signal into the void hoping for a billion+ to one chance of hitting our little planet at a time we are listing - Not before the Romans or after we're cooked. Engineers start with: how can I send the message with as little cost (materials, power, etc) as possible? If they over engineer, they get fired. "Close" in this context is 10,000 light years. Millions of light years for galaxies.)

..of removing actual intelligence in order to replace it with "intelligence-native" AI, which is all A and no I.

Apparently Block deals with financial transactions. I see no reason to worry at all. /s

Take code written in a time when people writing code actually knew what they were doing, because it was so bloody annoying to do that only people really interested in doing it well were actually doing it.

Let's make it code that handles money transfers, an area even the most ignorant would likely agree requires code of high quality.

Let an LLM rewrite that in a modern language, using training data from a whole lot of really low quality code scraped off the internet, and with no one competent in the original code available to ensure the result is anywhere near sensible. Sounds like a great idea.

Then why not tell the AI to write the code in highly optimized Assembly?

So, no actual citation to back up your rather far-fetched claim then, just more misinformation...

No, it doesn't!

I mean, if I were to quote from the actual guidance issued by the court a reasonable reader might agree that it says "Article 8 cannot be construed as conferring the right to live in a particular location"

What the guide does say is that "... in immigration matters, where there is an arguable claim that expulsion threatens to interfere with the alien’s right to respect for his or her private and family life, Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention requires that States must make available to the individual concerned the effective possibility of challenging the deportation or refusal of residence order and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality [...]. Moreover, a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must not be deprived of all guarantees against arbitrariness. On the contrary, he or she must be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and censure a possible abuse by the authorities. Before that review body the person concerned must have the benefit of adversarial proceedings in order to present his or her point of view and refute the arguments of the authorities."

In other words, in line with section 2 of article 8 ("There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime"), the refusal to allow an individual in / the deportation of an individual must be contestable and in accordance with the law - not that there is no legal right for that refusal or deportation.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, you (seemingly) being anti-immigration doesn't make the FUD you spout correct.

Citation required!

The current rules state (among other things) that "When applicants are considered a danger to national security or public order" asylum claims will be refused, and the applicant deported. One might imagine that a member of a terrorist organisation with a particular bugbear about western, secular, liberal democracies would fall into this category...

So... evidence?

Predicting the future isn't easy.

The .com bubble was pretty much "Oh hey, computers have been around for a while and they're great, now the internet is arriving so let's make sure we don't miss out. Let's pump all of the money into any company that has a web page or might consider making one, in case they conquer the internet."

LLMs feel to me more like, "Oh hey, someone added an LCD screen to a toaster and they claim next year they'll make the airline industry irrelevant, let's put all of the money into toaster factories!"

That doesn't mean LLMs will have no place where they're useful. But, barring a new breakthrough, it's hard to see how what is in essence a "pick next word" algorithm might turn out e.g. a new Google.

But, as mentioned, predicting the future isn't easy. Perhaps I'll look like a luddite in a few years time. Then again, my track record of greeting 3D movies with "meh" every time they roll back into fashion, is pretty darn good. :p

There are ten links in this summary. What is the method by which you decide the first sentence of the third link is the one that makes you decide whether to keep reading or not?

This is starting to look like bad faith argumentation to me. Remember that the premise here was using LLMs as assistants for code review, not code production. Decent coding assistant LLMs that can be run locally already exists, and have for years. They're not as good as full size models running in data centers, of course, but they're also not useless. As long as they are able to catch _some_ security issues, at an acceptable signal to noise ratio, they offer value in freeing up reviewer brain bandwidth to focus on other issues.

The problem arises when people buy into the "these things are so brilliant" hype and figure they're a silver bullet for everything. They're definitely not. They have a very niche usage area, but within that they can be useful. And with models now existing on millions of computers around the world, for languages that are not going out of fashion any time soon, and with people making old mistakes all the time, I don't see that vanishing anytime soon even if big tech folds. We'll just have to wait to see how it all pans out.

Based on the summary, to me the use of "upstream" indicates "maintainers". As in the people responsible for approving and merging.

I'm not sure the business numbers are all that important when it comes to code. We already have them trained on _a lot_ of code, and since they're more focused they can be smaller without being useless compared to the full size ones. If we can run them locally on a single GPU, it doesn't go away when the bubble pops and the big players stop throwing away money.

As with any tool, they need to be used where they actually offer value. Which is definitely not to architect solutions, but to sanity check smaller chunks of code. Assuming false positives can be kept to a minimum, that is real value even if all they do is save some time in catching a limited set of issues.

Which isn't the same as a (relatively) stationary kid being hit by a 4000 lb object moving at 6 MPH. The impact, the transfer of momentum, will (usually) be greater.

But, yeah, agreed.

This story serves as a good advert for Waymo, imo.

I've heard him talk about that as well, so he seems well aware of it. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean he'll be brilliant at actually doing it himself. It's one thing to talk about other projects in hindsight, something quite different when doing it yourself.

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic.

He's stated they did not listen to his input on that show, so unless he's lying about that it shouldn't be much of an indicator. Of course, it could also be his input was even worse than the choices they went with. I find that unlikely, but it's at least a possibility.

Well, having written that I then came across Bradon stating he'll be writing the screenplay for Mistborn himself. So let's hope he's up to the task after all.