For int'l flights: Amazon Leo is launching next year. Delta is waiting.

And LEO is even easier than GEO since it doesn't have any moving parts. GEO had to rotate to keep alignment. LEO are all using phased arrays.

For existing code in the QA he said leave it be and it's better to fix.

For new code, he's recommending Rust and the advantage he talks about is that it makes the code more maintainable by people. And one thing that every AI coding talk I've seen agrees on is that what makes code more maintainable by people also helps AI and vice versa.

People and AI both have limited attention and memory. The less context necessary the easier it is to evaluate safety.

Another thing not in the summary he touches on is hardware safety. Not just software bugs but also compromised hardware which if your driver is memory safe can also prevent a buggy or adversarial piece of hardware since the hardware is effectively user input.

To balance out OP's selective quoting to avoid people strawman-ing his argument as a fanatic who can't balance risk:

I think a tool that lets one person do the work of 20 will result in 17 people being laid off, as the company triples its rate of work. (I can see triple being feasible and achievable in the software industry, but maybe not more)

Oh, and a "train" is a bit like 100 cars back to back.

"this belief is utterly false. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: 'Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.'"

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...

"We ... show that [the Shareholder Primacy Norm] is not a legal requirement, at least under the guise of shareholder value maximization. This is in contrast to the common assertion that managers are legally constrained from addressing corporate social responsibility issues if doing so would be inconsistent with the economic interests of shareholders."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...

Dawkins is very likely right. I am also impressed at how human AI can seem, with all our faults of hallucinating, hiding our mistakes, and making stuff up, as well as the stuff we are proud of. But Dawkins and I both realise that we have no definition of 'intelligence' that will allow us to rule whether AI is intelligent. The Turing test has foundered because the early AI attempts were able to express ideas eloquently even when their 'intelligence' was questionable. It seems that AI has a talent for imitation and mimicry, which lets it convince us in a Turing test even when it shouldn't. Any adversarial training to get AI to distinguish between AI and us will also spawn a more convincing imitator. Where do we go from here? I find it entirely reasonable that AI executes the same sort of processes as our minds do, but proving equality rather than equivalence is going to be hard.

> Am I the only one that can't imagine any possible value an AI assistant would bring to a game?

I use AI assistants lots when playing games!

At the moment it's Minecraft. I want to figure how to build something, e.g. a golem farm. I look for tutorials online but (1) they're all videos which I hate watching, (2) they're all hyper-specific and concrete, "place this block here then that block there", but what I want to understand are the foundational principles so I can know how to adapt the golem farm to my own purposes -- what are the mechanics, how do they spawn, how does water flow, what is the SOLUTION SPACE of possibilities.

Gemini AI has been really good at this kind of thing.

The other time is when I get stuck, or want advice on how to make a character build to achieve a certain end. Once again the online advice is typically in the form of "walkthroughs", do step 1 then step 2 then step 3, in other words just one possible way to play the game, and it's too easy to accidentally read too far and spoil the rest of it. I don't want that. I like the feeling of openness and possibilities. I again ask Gemini, and it gives me advice on just the particular bit I'm stuck on, and is better at showing for me the available options.

There are definitely instance of AI memorizing images/paintings and having full recall. So that is a copyright problem.

Lua remains the commonest choice today for games to offer scripting/modding. It's pretty much the industry standard. (Outside C# for Unity).

Nothing. $103/hr for a superhuman employee or $10.30/hr for a superhuman employee.

If it's boosting employee efficiency by 50% as claimed in another Slashdot story above then assuming your Sr. Engineer makes $250,000 a year / 48 weeks / 8hr days = $650/day. + 50% for AI means you're getting an extra $325/day in work from the employee.

They could run 10x costs for 3 hours a day and break-even. But the average is currently way less than 3hr/day. Claude claims the average developer consumes $13/day in tokens. So even if we 10x that it's $130/Tokens per day vs $325/day in productivity.

DJI just released an e-bike platform where the firmware lets you pick what Class of e-bike you want it to be in the menu. And that takes like 2 seconds to change. So, you're supposed to put a sticker on it labeling what class you picked, but then you also are supposed to be able to use unlimited power on private property and then go into the menu and de-tune it to ride on the road.

And that ladies and gentlemen is from someone whose username is "Stabiesoft".

The practical application IMO is a glorified cubicle. I just want to be able to put on a headset, and have a wireless keyboard and mouse with a 32" 4k monitor anywhere I need to go.

Laptop screens are way too constrictive and the ergonomics are atrocious. But we're still a long way off from 32" 4k display equivalent VR.