It's a common trope, but there are at least two problems with it. The first is that it assumes no two people ever died with a shared secret, which is absurd. The second is that the game isn't over yet unless they are all dead. Someone could still come forward on their death bed to reveal that it was a team.

Who said it is a "single coding style"? Imagine a small team. One is a system architect, another is a domain expert, yet another is the person who authors papers and release emails, and two more people write code. It has been speculated that a single person would have to have deep knowledge in multiple domains, and nobody has provided irrefutable evidence it isn't a team who happens to know what code reviews are and how to use them.

This is a core misunderstanding that is often repeated by people who haven't researched AI system design. The new models are not LLMs, though they do have one component in the stack that is an LLM. What you are doing is talking about a web stack as though it was just a database, then talking about what databases can and cannot do ... essentially saying "databases can't create user interfaces!" ..."I really hope people will stop over-hyping these database thingys." For the record, the linked video doesn't paint the whole picture, but is merely intended to make the point that the picture is much bigger and more nuanced than all of the "LLMs can't ..." types are aware.

All outgoing session negotiations are also incoming traffic. Season negotiation is bidirectional. How do you expect a server to receive the outgoing packets for the client as incoming packets to the server during initial session negotiation?

People always seem to assume that Satashi Nokimoto is a single person, and if it isn't then there will always be some evidence pointing to "this is the guy" and some other evidence that "this isn't the guy", but I suspect it is team. Solving a puzzle basing the approach on a false assumption is a great way to guarantee you can't solve it.

I can't wait to hear your answer to this: How do you propose to establish sessions if all inbound traffic is blocked?

I get that you are an idiot. What baffles me is your intense need to tell everyone else what an idiot you are.

It was only a lie of omission if the pertinent information was intentionally withheld dipshit.

There are two categories of realtime: soft and hard. Realtime is complicated, and no OS can guarantee hard realtime if the hardware is not up to the task (excuse the pun.) For example, if you are running an OS written in assembly language on am Intel 8051 microcontroller clocked at 10 Mhz you cannot handle events that could easily achieve hard realtime on a modern system, because the task switching overhead alone precludes such capability, even if your application is just an infinite loop.

Yeah I'm kind of done feeding Google every scrap of information about me for advertising purposes. I switched to private search and email last year for about $100/year and don't miss them at all.

You have actually managed to out-stupid yourself. I didn't think it could be done!

A lie of omission is when pertinent information is withheld. I'm not even going to try to parse the rest of your nonsensical sentence.

I can't tell if you are lying or mistaken.

So AI can't be intelligent, but can be stupid? It seems AI is a lot like the typical person who posts as AC on Slashdot.

It's ironic that the human(s) reporting this couldn't do so without (apparently) lying, in the title no less. The article talks about accuracy, and an inaccuracy is not a lie unless it is intentional. Of course whomever wrote the title is likely seeking to impose their own anti-AI bias to the story, and so chose to lie about what the study actually says.