I don't like ads either, but I do like that they (at least for now) have a paid tier with no ads. If there was an option to use google services at some paid tier, without being part of their ad network, I'd probably pay it. But there isn't and llm is as good as search these days (in many cases anyways) so I'm happy to jump ship. Piss off, google.
Trump in his first term was willing to go all-in on human spaceflight to mars...until he realized he couldn't get it done before the end of his term. Trump has always been interested in space stuff...but only if it's achievable within his term. This seems like a play to keep contractors employed and skills sharp until the next administration is seated, which will hopefully be willing to invest in goals longer than 4 years.
Unfortunately everyone picked an opinion two years ago, when AI was genuinely garbage beyond some basic bash scripts or a top 1000 bug/question on stack exchange (which mostly overlap). AI started getting really good in Dec '24, particularly spring '25 and by August 2025 even the $20/mo tier of chatgpt was starting to get legit as OpenAI started to try catching up with (now market leader) Anthropic and their blessed claude code. The 4.5/4.6 models released this year are nothing short of incredible, and the Qwen 3.5 series of models are right behind the state of the art models. Google is doing some stuff too but I'm kind of done giving them my money.
In 2-3 years we'll have found all 20,000 top reasons LLMs hallucinate things and solved for 95% of them
Creatives rallied against LLMs but as has been proven, nobody actually cares about making funny pictures of , they just want to know that they can.
Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.
As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.
>What's a better solution, if any?
Open source firmware
Banks think mobile devices are secure.
Are you inferring that since they let you use a mobile device that they think they're secure?
This is the same group of organizations that will allow you to withdraw cash if you know a four digit code that hasn't been changed in the account holder's entire lifetime. The same group of organizations that will allow you to ACH transfer funds from an account because you know the account number and routing number, which are both on every check they hand out.
BTW, none of the things in the previous paragraph are enough to secure a transfer of funds. Banks always have additional assurances. They cash checks because they don't really cash them, they put them in holding status until they get confirmation from the other side. They allow ACH transfers because they know exactly who is performing them and have a lot of legal leverage to recoup any lost funds. They allow fishy (to a certain extent) credit card transactions because they charge enough interest to eat the losses. They allow teller withdrawals because they have cameras and the FBI will actually go after those who commit fraud.
90% of bank security is invisible to the public. It annoys me when people say "We can do this, my bank does it and they consider it secure." You almost certainly aren't doing what your bank does from a larger perspective.
Yes. So far, the LLM tools seem to be much more useful for general research purposes, analysing existing code, or producing example/prototype code to illustrate a specific point. I haven't found them very useful for much of my serious work writing production code yet. At best, they are hit and miss with the easy stuff, and by the time you've reviewed everything with sufficient care to have confidence in it, the potential productivity benefits have been reduced considerably. Meanwhile even the current state of the art models are worse than useless for the more research-level stuff we do. We try them out fairly regularly but they make many bad assumptions and then completely fail to generate acceptable quality code when told no, those are not acceptable and they really do need to produce a complete and robust solution of the original problem that is suitable for professional use.
But one of the common distinctions between senior and junior developers -- almost a litmus test by now -- is their attitude to new, shiny tools. The juniors are all over them. The seniors tend to value demonstrable results and as such they tend to prefer tried and tested workhorses to new shiny things with unproven potential.
That means if and when the AI code generators actually start producing professional standard code reliably, I expect most senior developers will be on board. But except for relatively simple and common scenarios ("Build the scaffolding for a user interface and database for this trivial CRUD application that's been done 74,000 times before!") we don't seem to be anywhere near that level of competence yet. It's not irrational for seniors to be risk averse when someone claims to have a silver bullet but both the senior's own experience and increasing amounts of more formal study are suggesting that Brooks remains undefeated.
Their stock price cratered when everyone realized you can vibe code a ticketing system very easily, which is what jira is at the end of the day. Cutting payroll is the easiest way to shed costs
This will not end well.
Why is this a problem?
I do not want my software censoring anything I make.
(+1, Truth)
Of all the major streaming platforms, Paramount+ stands alone in how often it just doesn't work. It doesn't work reliably on state-of-the-art streaming boxes. It doesn't work reliably on desktop PCs. In fact, of all the devices we have in our household, it works reliably on a total of zero of them.
We have several of the other commercial streaming platforms plus the apps or online services for several of our main national TV channels as well and almost all of them work almost all of the time. It's bizarre how bad Paramount+ manages to be compared to literally everyone else. It must be hurting their bottom line to some degree or surely will do soon if they don't get a handle on it, because why pay for something you literally can't watch?
[A computer is] like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy. -- Joseph Campbell
