No doubt Microsoft's agenda today is different from what it was 30 years ago, but it's still Microsoft's agenda. Microsoft can be relied upon to do what is good for Microsoft, and any dependency you form on their products can and will be used as leverage to extract money from you.

I know, he didn't seem that human, but I'm pretty sure he is.

On the one hand, love seeing Musk lose, on the other hand, I hate seeing Altman win..

The problem is that you have hundreds of folks now running the exact same checks with the exact same tools and all submitting without a care for what any of the others are doing.

Dupes are nothing new, but the scale of dupes becomes gigantic because now everyone thinks "I can be a kernel security researcher now" and all have the same tools at their disposal that tend to find the same things.

As to the 'genuine bugs', don't know about this current crop, but historically "security researchers" have already been bad for "crying wolf" and reporting non-issues that they didn't understand. The highest profile I can think of was when some "security researcher" started telling everyone in the world that nintendo stores passwords in clear text because he thought the 'OK' button only activated when the password entered matched successfully, but it just lit up as soon as *any* password that passed the rules was entered. AI code review is still pretty inclined to report non-issues in a similar way, so I imagine not just dupes, but lots of nothing coming along too. Those would be *harder* to have a system automatically handle, since a human actually has to understand the report and reconciling with reality. An LLM isn't going to be very good at dismissing bogus LLM complaints.

Well, it would be nice if the submitter was on the hook for the token budget to find dupes, but practically speaking the project probably runs it.

I would probably not have an LLM automatically merging duplicate tickets. The flow should be 'pass on to human review as no apparent duplicate was detected' or 'pass back to submitter with indication of probable dupe, to let the submitter decide if they have something to add to the original ticket and/or to subscribe to that ticket. I have seen enough problems when *humans* unilaterally merge tickets that end up being unrelated, and that clutters up and confuses an issue. Don't need LLM that may be pretty good, still would be even worse than the humans at messing up 'dupe or not'.

It's a matter of what the LLM operator is pointing it at.

The LLM operator submitting the bugs aren't paying attention nor feeding their instance of LLM anything about others' submissions. So they are flooding with dupes, and the LLM has no reason to detect duplicate submissions, since it's not fed that data.

An LLM fed the mailing list and new submissions could credibly find dupes. If it fails, oh well, a dupe made it through and was annoying. If it erroneously detects a dupe, oh well, the submitter has to re-assert that it is not a dupe and is somewhat annoyed.

LLM ability to identify roughly duplicate bugs is decent enough. I don't like the hand waving of "AI can write the code, AI can review the code, AI can test the code" to absolute confidence (finding ways to expend more tokens does improve it's success a bit, especially if you can give it a 100% perfect pass/fail test to run and and let it retry), but here it's a pretty straightforward application, just a better fuzzy match at finding duplicate reports.

I'm very surprised it's legal here. I thought the electric companies were legally required to serve their customers reliably, and not solely when they found it desirable to do so -- that's the agreement they made in exchange for being a natural monopoly (natural because you can't economically run more than one set of electric lines to every household). Apparently I was wrong about that?

Yes, though I don't know about nvmeof. I feel like san style block is overall less popular than other sorts of software approaches to distributed storage nowadays.

Storage people keep pushing the way it was done with fiber channel attached controllers abstracting things to generic block devices. Shared sas, fcoe, iscsi/iser... Have seen so many tries at bringing the concept and being ignored in favor of things like clustered filesystems and object store.

Just like hardware raid controllers are nearly non existent in nvme world, and folks are managing multiple disk redundancy in the os, people are looking for more transparent storage solutions and I just don't think nvmeof plays a role instead of direct attached storage to open ended operating systems..

Dual socket epyc can have 160 lanes.

Coincidentally, 40 nvme drives at x4 would use 160 lanes.

However, that would be useless, since you need connectivity beyond the box and misc needs for pcie. So either x2 per drive or pcie switches.

And double it to get through the night.... I was calculating based on kwh per day of expected solar against kwh of consumption for a gigawatt (so... 24gwh).

It wasn't a random ass guess, I did the math.

5 miles by 5 miles is a huge installation. Far from the suggestion that they could just slap some panels down on their facility and even have surplus for the grid..

As astronaut Frank Borman put it, "a superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations which would require the use of his superior piloting skill".

The programmer's version of that would be "a superior programmer uses his superior judgement to avoid creating the bugs that would require the use of his superior debugging skill".

The risk in this scenario is that after a few iterations of people applying AI-generated "black box" modifications, users start reporting that the ancient app is crashing on them now and then, and nobody has the first clue why, or how to fix it... and since the crash isn't readily reproducible, you can't even do a "git bisect" to figure out which commit introduced the regression. Now you're left with two unappetizing choices: either live with the instability forever, or roll back all of the "blind" commits to the last known-stable version and never touch the codebase again.

Note that you need a significant multiplier of gigawatt scale to get gigawatt scale throughout the night.

But either way, the point is that the magnitude wouldn't be just slapping panels on property already planned, they'd have to have a massive solar install bigger than many cities.

Did you read the part where they want this to be a Gigawatt scale facility? That means you would need about 25 *square miles* of land for the solar....

Nadella personally stands to lose out on billions if anything bad happens to OpenAI. Seems like his testimony especially about subjective non-fact based matters should largely be ignored.