Coding is solved in the sense that you don NEED to write code anymore. Of course you need to check and design and find better ways of doing things, but nothing of this requires you to write the code directly, you can always design, check and ask the LLM to implement a new version.
This shows the inverted priorities people have in the US. The main feature of a car is the price you pay to get it working and serviced. If it has high end leather seats is a secondary decision left for people with extra money in the bank.
Americans are paying on average $50K for a new ICE car, gas prices are at an all time high, insurance premiums at an all time high, car service costs at an all time high, interest rates at an all time high, and they still think they're making a good deal. This is what I call financial illiteracy.
Everyone is surprised that a person that some consider to be one of the greatest modern mathematicians can have such obtuse views of technology and its own field.
Every company in the world feels "safe" in sending their proprietary code, design documents, and business strategy into a black box that learns from all that and returns code and text, which is used sometimes even without revision.
If people are so simple minded they cannot see the downsides for everyone here, except the ones controlling the black box, then I don't know what to say.
The is the obvious question anyone should ask when it comes to assets, but of course its not something that interests those pushing for blockchain-based solutions.
The reason is quite simple, American corporations know they cannot depend on models developed in China; not because they're bad or lower quality models, but because they know their government can ban these models any time they want. It's an implicit assumption that every company knows to be true.
I would answer to this that the mathematicians (humans) are the ones who give any meaning to mathematical discoveries. If we don't have mathematicians anymore, the result is that AI can find whatever they want, but 99% of that will be useless waste. Outside of practical applications, the only reason most mathematical results have any interest is that lots of mathematicians spend time trying to find their solution. Once humans stop caring, mathematics done in an automated fashion will also stop having any value, other than its possible use in finding solutions to existing engineering problems.
No, you don't work w/ a fleet of agents, you use them to do your work.
This is a general issue that is being forced on us by AI companies; AI is not a human being, it is a tool that we can use to do things. We don't have them as coworkers or subordinates, they're objects specialized in language processing. Thinking otherwise leads people to all kinds of existential and psychological issues that in the end make no sense.
Your comparison doesn't hold. ASML depends on components owned by the US, but US companies also depend on components created only by ASML. It is a mutual dependency. It doesn't imply that Dutch police should go around doing the bidding of a foreign government. This is much worse and should be protested.
A nasty and rare bug can and will be exploited once it is found. The only thing necessary is for malicious actors to start adding this case in innocent looking code and there you have.
He wouldn't have this net worth if he ever had a spine. Mind you, he's very tough to people under him, and that's a very important characteristic of this kind of people, but he really doesn't have a spine.
A major problem we have is that computer programming is not engineering as people like to say. An engineering discipline VALUES redundancy and is always designing for safety. Programming likes to think of itself as math, and deliberately choses less redundancy for the sake of convenience and speed. The classical example is how operating systems are written with languages that allow an index to be out of bounds. We now have systems that are glued together using bubble gum pretending to be safe, when they fail in the most horrible way when one of the links break.
Ok, so basically using Open AI models for research is a joke, the only thing you're doing is furnishing Open AI with more data that they'll use internally to pretend they found the results.
Yes, I suspect this is true. Otherwise it makes no sense they have somehow "found" so many important results while professional mathematicians can't direct the same AI to help them find anything of substance.
Another possibility is that they have internal versions of the model with access to training data that is not provided to external users.
The problem is not that AIs will somehow treat people badly, it's that they'll be controlled by humans who will treat other people badly using AI as a tool.
And it's all by design, Meta and its founder have a long history of releasing products with security "flaws" that are immediately used by them to collect vast amounts of information about their victims.
I believe the bar for publication should be "can this be understood by (expert) humans". If that's not the case, it may even be true, but who cares? It's not improving knowledge, which is by definition human understanding.
Which is interesting because the solution should be obvious: use AI to reproduce results and test what's published, instead of using bogus AI to publish more bogus results.
Borland made the virtual tables used by C++ and ObjPascal compatible, that's why it was possible to mix the two languages. If the design is different than it becomes a much more difficult problem.
It's because of people like you that these companies have a free ride. When we're talking about billion dollar companies there's no such thing as a "mistake", because they need to be held accountable for everything that they do. Thinking otherwise let them keep the rewards while getting away with anything wrong they cause to society.
Yes, the media has conditioned most of us to believe that anyone starting or investing in a tech company and at least a billion dollars in equity is "doing good" and should be emulated.
The same thing that works for databases also works for excel. You shard the data and run your analysis on the set of shards in excel. It's not elegant, but can solve many problems.