As a matter of fact, yes. Specifically, to the Greenland region.

Although a golden bridge of grossly outsized proportions and festooned with tacky ornamentation would be much preferred.

Apparently, its current purpose is a demo for their "Copilot" AI technology.

With all of GitHub's great new AI features, it writes all your code for you! It doesn't matter whether the site is up at any given moment; just download your newly completed app at some point then the site is online. You're free to kick back, relax and scroll your social feeds because you don't actually have to do anything anymore. This is truly a golden era!

This is why NASA always packs a tin of Bondo with the mission supplies.

So you prompt the LLM to "find all the bugs".

Even if the LLM can find every last bug (which in turn assumes that this type of problem isn't NP-hard or has some issue that Godel would point out), just defining to the LLM exactly what a "bug" is seems to be pretty much the same thing as those formal specifications that you just convincingly dismissed as inadequate.

I don't think that there's anything magical about LLMs that would let them get around fundamental mathematical roadblocks.

It would mean that there's an 83% chance that the rest of us would be spared from more posts expounding on your silly line of reasoning.

If that's the case, the next time you play Russian roulette, why don't you go ahead and put in 5 bullets?

If what you say is true, then why is everyone freaking out over the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

From now on, I'm only drinking soda in October.

Ignoring the fact that you don't seem to know what a laptop battery is, it looks like you could have a promising career as a data center site planner.

Not to mention, blocking more ads and other unnecessary stuff == better performance on the stuff you were actually trying to view. It very likely comes out as a net performance win even with a ~20% disadvantage in raw CPU speed.

If you dig deeper, you'll find that AMD originally reverse engineered the *8080*, not the 8086. The two companies had entered into a cross-licensing agreement by 1976. Intel agreed to let AMD second-source the 8086 in order to secure the PC deal with IBM, who insisted on having a second source vendor.

There would have been no Intel success story without AMD to back them up.

(That actually would have been for the best. IBM would probably have selected an non-segmented CPU from somebody else instead of Intel's kludge.)

I once worked at a place that had a clean room process to create code compatible with a proprietary product. Anybody who had ever seen the original code or even loaded the original binary into a debugger was not allowed to write any code at all for the cloned product. The clone writers generally worked only off of the specifications and user documentation.

There were a handful of people who were allowed to debug the original to resolve a few questions about low-level compatibility. The only way they were allowed to communicate with the software writers was through written questions and answers that left a clear paper trail, and the answers had to be as terse as possible (usually just yes or no). Everyone knew that these memos were highly likely to be used as evidence in legal proceedings.

I highly doubt that any AI tech bros have ever been this rigorous, and I'd bet that most of these AIs have been trained on the exact same source code that they are cloning.