These points are all flawed, and if I thought you wrote them, or even understood them yourself, I'd bother writing a full rebuttal.

Not half as violent as allowing obsolete approaches and flawed architecture to remain out of some weird combination of concern for backwards compatibility and sentimentality.

And it doesn't use MongoDB.

MongoDB is webscale.

Python 2 users were supported for more than a decade after 3 came out, and there was a LOT of migration tooling released. CIOs may not want to be forced to upgrade too often, but if they think upgrading once every 10 years is too much, then they need to quit and get into something more aligned with their expectations. Perhaps blacksmithing.

More people do office work than ever before.

This story is so old it was the reason for Unix. Once the platform controls the essential business process, it owns the business. You work for them now, and all your aspirations are moot.

It's amazing to me that with access to the world's knowledge people will just write shit, then, when corrected, insist on it, without bothering to check. Anonymity is a powerful thing I guess.

Here, I copied the link to the Artemis program outline for you:

https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in...

Also an additional question: If AI writes most of your code today and god forbid if both Anthropic + OpenAI close shop tomorrow, who will write most of your code then?

That's right, my point is exactly that. Humans live in the human world where herd mentality is the law and your job as a child is to master enough social patterns so that you can thrive during your lifetime. That game is a lot more complex than trying to pass off an LLM text as a human text.

On your second paragraph, I would merely indicate to you that the high water mark is not the same as the low watermark, or the median or the mean. Pointing to a few instances of "excellent writing" is statistical noise if the bulk of normal LLM written instances does not also qualify as "excellent writing". But if most or all instances of LLM writing objectively constituted "excellent writing" then it would be very easy to spot, as it would stand out against human "average writing". Either way, the in-crowd can recognize the out-crowd.

Excellent! Luckily I have a life outside of slashdot :)

Nope. The Open Source ethos is that you get to use the software (you need explicit permission), and also to see the source code and modify it if you want, provided you contribute back. You can contribute with money, or with resources, or with bug reports, or even with explicit attribution, etc.

What you are seeing here is several generations of startups and small or large businesses using software they found on the internet for free, setting up a website once and never maintaining it. The fact that the software they use is open source is irrelevant. They're not looking at the source, the contractor who built the site is nowhere to be found, and the vulnerabilities are here to stay.

Yes, they do. The HLS might take people from lunar orbit to the surface and back. They've still got to get to lunar orbit, and that uses an expensive SLS launch.

Even using Starship, it's unclear how much it would cost to launch from Earth to the moon. A lot more than it would seem from the mass to LEO numbers for sure. A hell of a lot of refuelling launches are required, including refuelling in lunar orbit, which means those tankers need their own LEO refuelling.

Likewise, the potential contract with Blue Origin is for the lander, not the whole mission. New Glenn isn't big enough, although the upgraded version they're talking about is getting closer. It doesn't exist yet though.

Neither Starship nor New Glenn are human rated and Starship especially isn't likely to be any time soon. Not good for racing.

Truly no-one has to worry about this scenario. Anyone who interprets a rejection of AI slop writing as an AI classification problem misses the point.

The point is: humans have many ways to separate the in-crowd from the out-crowd, and it's not well defined what criteria are used.That's what nerds in High School always misunderstand. They think it's about breaking that one specific unfair rule. It's not and never will be.

People who fake their own writing using AI slop can be found out, either after the first incident, or the second, or the third, through a combination of many unrelated things. It doesn't matter what precisely.

Once you're labeled out-crowd, you probably stay there. Maybe you're incensed about it. Maybe you feel it's unfair that you're labeled this way for a single infraction. Doesn't matter. It's not about classification errors and well defined detection problems. It's about being socially accepted or not. There are no fixed rules.

If you fuck up you're out. So don't fuck up in trivial ways that are easy to spot.

That is probably a good thing. The open internet has been a cesspool of advertising and commercial garbage for a long, long time. The sad part is merely that kids who grew up with that never knew what it was originally.

Yes. What you're missing is that AI researchers are, by and large, dumb. There's a handful of scientist types who are subject matter experts and think this makes them smart enough to make decisions in another subject they know nothing about. Then there's a much larger handful of groupies who worship the scientist types and will just go along whatever is proposed, no matter how sketchy. Finally, there's the handful of lowly IT guys who are treated as morons by the researchers, and are not allowed to interfere with the important work of testing the Stupid Intelligence models.

I think that's mostly what you're missing.