Yes, water makes things wet. Water is a thing. Therefore water can make water wet.

I'm pretty sure that if I set up a gigantic data centre full of computers that illegally broke into lots of high profile services I would be facing criminal charges and prison time. How come the owners and operators of OpenAI are not facing the same already?

I'm living with the USB failures today. We have a fleet of SBC's installedin hard to reach locations. Half of them have had USB ports fail in service over the last couple of years. Oh, wait, they are expensive Nvidia Jetson Nano boards not Raspberry Pi's. Our installed Raspies have been working very well.

I am a Rust developer by trade. Previously a C and C++ developer. And a bunch of other things beside. This news is nothing to me, I have never wanted anything to do with Windows world.

Hey, wait a minute. I'm a Rust user for six years now and a proponent. What do you find so insufferable about me? What did I ever do to annoy you?

Do you realise what an odd thing it is for you to say that? I'm mean we are constantly told AI is this amazingly wonderful thing that the human race needs to solve all its problems and cure all ill's. That's why they are consuming hundreds of billions of dollars to build it right?

On the other hand there are predictions of everyone being made unemployed and starving to death while AI takes over everything for its own nefarious purposes. That is hardly the solution we were promised above.

So far, I don't think AI itself is the problem. Having all that information, processing power and intelligence in the hands of a very few humans so that they can benefit from and rule over us with an authoritarianism that Stalin would be proud of is the danger we face. That is to say good old human greed and desire for power.

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.