Do they need cover to reject anything? In my projects, I reserve the right to reject anything, for any reason, solely on the grounds that they are my projects, and if someone doesn't like it, they can fork off (their own repository).

Without a hostage there is no ransom!

I cannot agree more with this sentiment. It feels outright insulting to asked to read LLM output in a context where it is *supposed* to be human feedback. Tell me what you would have told the LLM to say, I can take it from there. I don't need you to LLM it up, because it will bury your point in a bunch of crap.

Could it provide useful info? Maybe, but I can do that myself if so. I want *your* thought on something, however incomplete it might be.

The dream is that the world is built for human limbs and the 'easiest' answer to claim the same versatility is to also have human limbs.

Stairs, cluttered terrain, a humble curb can all cause problems for the usually better answer of wheels.

The non-humanoid robots we already make those by the ton, and are, as one would predict, much more useful than human-like anatomy in their context. They however want to cover the underserved facet, banking hard on ML to make the humanoid design more viable while they traditionally are just infeasible to program.

Of course, that has proven a challenge, since the ML needs to instrument all the inputs and outputs of a human interaction system, and feeling is a huge part of human operation that cannot be instrumented. So they set people about trying to clumsily remote operate them in hopes of gaining training data, but it's low quality control and very low volume of data.

The disconnect is the "promise" is that LLM brings expertise down to the masses. If AI is "too hard for Ford to get right", that dramatically undermines the messaging that drives the current expectations and levels of investment.

This is very much evidence that companies can't be as bullish as they might inclined to be, because whatever you may think of Ford, the typical company is probably worse.

It's less funny when you have people literally and sincerely saying this...

I have to take some solace in the fact that these are the same idiots who talk a lot and do nothing that I usually ignore who do this all the time, but management is extra entranced with them over the AI cheerleading this go around...

Being rich doesn't make you stupid, but being really rich starts to isolate you in a bubble of luxury and sycophants, and eventually you start to forget what the rest of the world is like, and start making decisions based on the unstated assumption that other people don't matter.

Maybe for starting their own businesses, but I don't think just to compensate them for having to take a job that's "beneath them". Like you indicate, if another person makes $15/hour and didn't get a handout because they never made money, it would seem awfully unfair to give someone more money because they used to make more money. Easy to argue that the person coming down should by all logic have more financial resources already than the folks working the jobs. If their lifestyle based on higher income is infeasible with available jobs, think the reasonable sentiment would be "tough". Sell that car and settle for something more modest or take a bus, the same sort of compromises the lower paid coworker has *always* had to make. I suppose if anything, some financial relief for those trying to support a college kid where scaling the lifestyle down isn't as straightforward, but broadly speaking they don't have a particular right for government to help them more than they help peers that never made a lot in the first place.

Keep in mind it's not and hasn't been a specific measure of something in particular in a while. It's a rough analogy for how a traditional process would have to make gate length to achieve the same density. So it's impossible to make a gate length that small, but by taking other measures it is supposed to be "just like getting them that small".

Fun fact: Paris was founded around 225 BC.

... so they've come to Slashdot to recruit volunteers; very resourceful of them. :)

AI is stupid, but it can track details and at least provide a hint.

On the "make stuff that works" side, I've had the experience like yours. If someone lets it go too far, then it's a headache and it's easier to roll it back. If anything a bit painful as it's "empowered" some of the worst to make my day harder, being confidently incorrect all the time.

On the "find stuff that's broken" side, well, humans don't have the attention span and the AI techniques are catching little but critical mistakes by humans. In my codebase that has had regular security reviews for over a decade, including a few outside consulting companies, this year marked the first year that the teams had LLM at their disposal. It found two security issues that no one had noticed, one of which had been there almost essentially from the beginning. Admittedly, neither were exactly world ending (both required attacker to log in with admin privileges and the things you could do were a bit constrained), but they were real and undesirable. One of them kind of missed the point and although it mis-characterized the behavior, it put a light on an area where a human could actually think through and sort out the real issue, and how the flawed approach applied more broadly than the AI identified.

So AI as a review tool can work, it has a significant amount of false positives and misses stuff of course, but it can either directly catch or inspire human attention on a sketchy area.

The security team said that it was actually quite remarkable they only found two vulnerabilities that both required admin access, that most projects they dealt with ended up with 4-5 vulnerabilities exposed to either unprivileged users or even unauthenticated access. This is the sort of code the world is mostly built on.

I didn't say PC hardware isn't good enough, I said there's no point buying compromise hardware that's not what you really wanted, because in the long run it's all pretty damn affordable. If an Intel or AMD box is what you prefer, by all means buy one and enjoy!

One thing I want out of my hardware is the ability to run my OS of choice without a lot of hassle, and since my OS of choice is MacOS, that kind of narrows down the field for me.

I imagine it's pretty mediocre, but I don't know and I don't particularly care, because I don't spend much time playing video games anymore. If I was a gamer I'd likely buy a different machine for that.

Are computer purchases not consensual? Nobody is forcing you to buy overpriced RAM if you don't want to, so the rape analogy doesn't work.

I'm an Apple fan; I'm typing this on a 2018 Mac Mini that I spent roughly $2K on -- but it's 2026 and that Mac is still running just great. That works out to an amortized cost of about 68 cents per day -- which is to say, negligible compared to my other expenses.

Trying to save money by buying cheap computer hardware is like trying to save money by buying single-ply toilet paper -- you can do it, sure, but why make your life noticeably worse when the amount of money you'll save is trivial?