This is a non-event.

No. That is amateur-level thinking. It will not work for the Moon. This is very fine dust and it is electrically charged. And you cannot simply "filter it out" either.

Indeed. And he got really lucky one time with his inherited money.

Ah, you are being stupid then. Figures. No, you cannot just "wash off" very fine dust.

Bla, bla, bla. All I see here is some wishful thinking.

Not so. They still need to create and transfer a "spark". LLM-generated ones fail at that.

And that is a hard, baked in limit that cannot be fixed: https://www.psypost.org/a-math...

Seems these people are just discovering this independently.

Because these "business interests" are stupid. They would get less productivity from their people if the worked more.

That effect applies to everybody, no exceptions. There are just idiots that think themselves supermen and unaffected. But they are wrong.

This is just the thing: This does not help getting higher productivity. In fact, working like that, productivity per week will be much lower due to errors, sickness, lack of creativity and insight and all competent people leaving sooner or later. All I can see here is virtue signaling via giving the appearance of maximum exploitation.

Interesting. So it is all fake. Not much of a surprise.

Indeed. Pure virtue signaling, intended to impress dumb investors.

Exactly. Incidentally, the peak of human performance was investigates a long time ago by Henry Ford and others. And they just wanted the most output from their workers. What they found was 30h/week for mental work (you can fluff that up to 40h by doing 2h of very simple things each day) and 40h/week for manual workers. If people work more per week, productivity per week _drops_ due to increased errors, inaccuracies, accidents, and sickness.

The idiots working more are just clueless about reality and virtue-signaling hard. What they do does not work and cannot work. And yes, this applies to _everybody_.

Indeed. The thing that is utterly telling is that it could not hack the 16 bit part. There is really enough documentation on the web on 16 bit x86 code that when you got a 32/64 bit compiler going, adding a target for 16 bit should be very, very easy. Well, for a human, it would be. Not for a mindless automaton.

Yes. Also note that writing bad C compilers is actually pretty easy because they are simple. That is one reason basically any platform has at least a C compiler. And there will habe been tons of examples in the training data. "How to write a C compiler" gets tons of hits on the web, with tutorials, sample code, entire books. It is a really well documented topic. And they even used GCC as an "oracle" to show the "AI" how it was done.

Oh, and look, it could not hack 16 bit code because that is a lot less well documented. There still are books, full instruction set documentations, etc. on the Web. I guess the transfer step required was just wayyyy to hard.

This is yet another meaningless stunt. All it shows is how well some topics are documented.