Maybe the moral of the story should be, don't listen to the C suite OR the tech media!

That's amazing. I used Delphi in the 1990s at about the same time as, IIRC, Visual Basic 4.0. I enjoyed it at the time, and Object Pascal was a pretty reasonable language, but outside of maintaining legacy apps, I don't really get it. I'm surprised to see both it and Visual Basic so high on the list.

I guess I'm also surprised to see C at #2. Maybe because of Linux?

Mozilla has discussed what kind of bugs they found. Here's their blog entry: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/05/behind-the-scenes-hardening-firefox/

You should read it. It's a very level-headed article that avoids the for and against LLM-hype that so many low quality news sources report.

Around close to the same time, Greg Kroah-Hartman also commented on improving reports: https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/26/linux-kernel-czar-says-ai-bug-reports-arent-slop-anymore/5226256

Finding bugs is good. Integrating these kind of tools into a testing and build pipeline is a good idea.

You might want to check your sources.

Here's Anthropic's writeup (March). They say:

Here's Mozilla's writeup:

We are in an economic mania right now. Governments, corporations, startups, you name it, are all afraid of being left behind. They are buying up memory, disks, computing capacity because, well, if they don't, someone else--one of their competitors--will.

Supply will be expanded and built out while demand remains high.

How long will this take? That's the trillion dollar question. It could be months or it could be years, but at some point, demand and supply will come back into closer to equilibrium. Whether that's because demand crashes or because supply builds up to meet demand is another open question. This has to be one of the greatest repositioning of capital in recent memory.

Hah, agreement on something!

But, how do you know that humans aren't deterministic? Maybe my exact brain and body, when given the exact same external stimuli over the past however many years, would produce the exact same results? Can't prove it either way, so are you operating on faith and belief about human intelligence?

LLMs are generally considered a combination of stochastic and deterministic (training, specifically). Critics often use the term "stochastic parrots," for example. Since LLMs rely on randomness, if you have a truly random number source, does that make them non-deterministic?

Probably better to not go down this road.

It's too bad, because Dawkins has written some interesting things, and hey, being the inventor of the word "meme" and memetics is a pretty big deal.

His reaction here is just astoundingly ignorant. Reading the dialog where he makes a Trump joke and the LLM responds (predictably) sycophanticly is, to use the modern parlance, just cringe. I would have hoped for a more informed take.

Hah, you're losing your touch! I've seen you troll far better than this.

Ok, then point me to a post on Slashdot where someone says (roughly, even) "it is all just known" when it comes to human intelligence or the brain."

Are you confused or talking to the wrong person? I have said many times that my position is that the existence of a brain that produces intelligence is evidence that human-type intelligence can be built or simulated. If it exists, it can be built. Disagreeing, Gweiher, literally in the post before mine, brought up the concept of "Physicalism." Physicalism is, definitionally, a metaphysical belief. The opposite of physicalism is another metaphysical belief, idealism, that more or less centers around the belief that reality is formed in the mind and spirit.

So, no, I did not bring up metaphysics or spiritualism.

Unbelievable...

That's pretty myopic thinking.

First of all, you're wrong. An attacker does not need "console" access but rather does need some kind of shell or execution ability. Given how sophisticated attacks today are often chains of vulnerabilities, I would not at all be surprised to see cPanel or other web vulnerabilities chained with this. Furthermore, if someone who doesn't work for you already has that level of access (meaning ability to execute a program on a computer), you already screwed up? Ok, and what if a trusted user account is compromised?

I don't understand the reaction.

Democracy is for retards.

Government did this. All of this. Government regulated so much that only a rare few can afford to compete.

This is late stage statism. Retard voters are to blame.

Like you.

For small values of "interesting" perhaps!

Point taken.

I think that's a fair statement. I'm personally not terribly interested in metaphysics. It's one of those topics that strikes me as like Christians arguments on the nature of Christ--is Christ purely divine? Is he both man and divine? Is he just a human? I feel like no matter how much energy I (or anyone!) expends on the metaphysical stuff, there's no answer, and not even a way of proving who is right or wrong. And, if I'm wrong? So what? A bit too ethereal for me!

In general, in the absence of decisive evidence either way, I would lean towards "it's possible" as opposed to "it's impossible."

I have never seen anyone on slashdot claim that "it is all just known" when it comes to human intelligence or the brain. Literally, never. It is also absolutely incorrect to say that we have no clue how the human--we have many clues. I have said repeatedly that we don't know it all. What we do know is that humans exist, and humans have human intelligence.

I posited earlier that if it exists, it can be built.

If you want to change the conversation to a metaphysical conversation about the nature of reality and your spiritual beliefs, then who even cares about your complaints about LLM technology? If you insist that human-type intelligence can never be built or simulated, prove that it can never happen. That's just like, your opinion, man.

I had an interesting exchange with Gweihir recently. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seems to be of the opinion that it is not proven that the human brain is responsible for human intelligence, that there is something special about human intelligence (that he also believes cannot be simulated or reproduced), and that understanding human intelligence is potentially impossible.

He says "Ah, yes, the deranged claim that we know how the human mind works and it is purely mechanistic. You just excluded yourself from rational discussion by pushing a quasi-religious dogma with no supporting scientifically sound evidence." (Gweihir also often capitalizes "Science".)

I don't know what he believes, but it kind of seems like he believes there is something ineffably unique and special about human intelligence, and he's offended that people ascribe similar "intelligence" words to AI and LLMs. If he wasn't so anti-religious, I would think he was some kind of fundamentalist.

In any case, thank you for the article link to SciAm. It was interesting.