History shows that developers cannot write safe code. Especially when there is a lot of code, developed over a long time with many people working on it. Rust at least offers to provide memory safety, which is a huge win, but not safety from all manner of other logical errors.

Of course if you have a lot of "unsafe" blocks in your Rust code because you are trying to make it do what C did in the same way C did it then you are not gaining anything much. I would not like to see that released until the "unsafe" had been reduced substantially.

If you think Rust provides "Proven because the compiler validates every individual unit." you are seriously uninformed about what Rust's memory safety guarantees are, what they are safe against and what they are not safe against.

Rust prevents sill memory use errors, like out of bounds array access, use of after free, dereferencing null or invalid pointers etc, etc. It also provides a great type checking system.

Of course catching such silly mistakes in a huge thing, a great benefit and will of course prevent any security vulnerabilities and other bugs that such mistakes give rise to.

However it does not prevent you from making logical mistakes in your code. You can still make an infinite number of other bugs. The it comes to security there are many ways to leave holes and vulnerabilities even if your code uses memory perfectly.

I'm old enough to do a lot of work using MS-DOS. I was on a team that developed a CAD system for schematic capture and printed circuit board layout. For years I used MS-DOS for software development. I don't recall anyone saying "it's never going to work". Even if MS-DOS was a simplistic and crude platform. Mind you I did have two Microsoft Surface Pro's whose batteries expanded enough to push the displays off the machine threatening to go on fire.

You should be more thoughtful about referring to 3rd world shit holes. Everyday we out here observe the USA circling down the shitter faster and faster.

I don't see why current law is not adequate to address AI.

AI is a machine like any other computer or a car, an oil tanker, an aircraft. When most other man made machines are involved in bad things there is often an investigation, responsibility is assigned to humans and repercussions often follow for them. People end up in prison for such things.

Only if you start to believe that AI is some independent sentient agent should the current law have a problem with it. Which I hope they do not.

Wait a minute? What ever happened was done by a person or persons. They built the machine, they connected it to the net, they let it rip. They carry the responsibility.

If I wedge a brick on the gas pedal of my car and let it go on it's merry way though the market square, mowing down everyone in it's path, I can't say "No, no, was not me, it was the car".

I don't know, DeepSeek Harness seems to be able to write code for me about as well as any other. In a way it does better as it does not throw so much vomit inducing sycophancy at me.

If A steals from you and B steals from A they are both guilty of theft right?

It is not a good argument for US LMM companies to say "hey they stole from us" when they have done the same.

As it stands The US companies have hoovered up all of human intellectual property they could find in an attempt to build huge and powerful empires. They did not ask, they did not licence, they just took it. As such I would say those models they have created belong to us all. Being the compressed version of our stuff. Which of course includes the Chinese. They can try and run those models and make money providing that service, but then so can anyone else.

So the accusation is that the Chinese obtained all the information they required from the US LMM creators.
But those US LLM creators obtained all the information they need from all of the users of the internet. Without any permission or compensation or even credit.

I don't think they have a leg to stand on in that accusation.

Any programming language needs the equivalent of Rust's "unsafe". Without it would be impossible to do any input or output. The language would be useless. It is far better to have such unsafe code clearly wrapped up and delimited in "unsafe" blocks rather than have memory unsafely permeate the entire code base.

Why are people using C++? The spec for the language isn't finished, the tooling isn't finished.

Rust has met the claims of its creators extremely well. It's not Rust's fault if some crazy "evangelists" have gone over the top some times.

Many serious, very well experienced and qualified engineers are using Rust. For very good reason which they can justify.

I will grant you that multiple Rust tool chains would be great. That will be largely fixed with the arrival of Rust support in GCC.

However, I worked in safety critical system for a long time. Think Boeing 777 Primary Flight Computers and jet engine management systems, I don't recall anyone demanding multiple toolchains for verification. Where are you getting that from?

We have used LLM's to generate a lot of Rust very successfully. I would rather trust AI generating Rust than almost any other language because the Rust compiler is so fussy about types and object lifetimes that it gives the LLM far less opportunity to sneaky silly, hard to find, errors in. Also Rust's error messages are very comprehensive and helpful, which LLM's make good use of.

As far as a I remember, back to the 1960's, such journalists were called "hacks" not "hackers",

Also in the world of horse riding, a hack (or "hacking") is a term for non-competitive ride outdoors on trails.

I first heard "hacker" in the 1970 in connection with building or modifying electronic devices unprofessionaly.

Interesting. I'm a Brit, born in London. What DHH has said there is something I hear all the time. Not just from Brits but from friends in Europe who come back from holidays in London. I don't know how people twist observations and discontent at watching ones culture being destroyed into racism.

As a Brit I thought you were talking about Trump. Now on his second term drowning babies after being excused for the first time.

There e is a danger of AI destroying our civilisation. But I suspect that is not because AI will get massively smarter or some how conspire against us. No the danger is here already and it is cause by AI in the hands of humans.

Bear with me.

Take a look a YouTube, take note of the massive and ever growing percentage of AI generate slop there. Take a look at LinkedIn, take note of the massive and ever growing amount of slop there.

Slop, growing all the time, massive amounts of untrustworthy information. Pushed by humans for their own devious purposes.

We could end up not being able to find any reality any more. Any hope of finding facts and truth buried like that famous needle in the haystack.

We have always had such slop. Nope the slop makers have a machine to fully automate it at massive scale.

Oh, and always feel nauseous whenever I hear from Bill Gates.