Judging by my own friends, middle aged guys who married early without having had a couple of girlfriends and sexual partners before that are the easiest males there are for seductive pretty women to swindle.

IMHO, it’s a mix of desperation, inexperience, sexual (and maybe more broadly, psychological) immaturity and the delusion that they know best in this domain because of their success in other areas of life.

Considering that Huang didn’t start a billionaire and is a 63 year old who has been married for 40 years, I bet he fits this profile and was an easy mark.

That’s an “I only care that it’s good for me” justification, THE Sociopath’s justification.

That doesn’t actualy counter the point others were making - which was a moral point - it just indicates that you yourself are amoral.

There is a valid moral point to be made about AI that is trained on the work of people who did NOT authorize that use of their work, which will then reduce the need for that work (meaning, reduce the incomes of such people or even make then unemployed).

As far as I know there is not a single AI used for vibe-coding which was trained on content whose makers willfully authorized that use of the content they made.

So whilst your point is valid for broader ML (and I personally agree with it), it is not sufficient to morally justify the kind used for vibe-coding or pretty much any LLMs or image generation AI engines, as they’re all trained on content not produced for or authorized for that purpose.

IMHO it’s only sufficient to morally justify things like character recognition or some forms of voice generation were the training dataset was properly authorized for that purpose.

More in general, a system where how much money one has dictates how much power one’s vote has with some having millions of times more power than others, isn’t democratic, though the correct word for it is Oligarchy rather than Dictatorship.

There is no such thing as Shareholder Democracy.

People expecting even publicly traded companies to be democratic are probably just blindy following ideas about companies that they were subtly propagandized into believing, rather than having really properly pondered on the subject and formed their own ideas.

Pretty much everybody wanting to buy a PC in the last 2 years has been fucked by Huang.

However if it’s non-consentual it doesn’t count as an affair.

The statistical distribution of errors in LLM produced code is Random Uniform, unlike with people-produced code were bugs tend to be more around certain areas because people have common sense so certain things are “obviously wrong” for them so they don’t make mistakes there and end up doing more mistakes in complex logic and interaction between multiple parts.

This means that LLMs will makes really basic “nobody could possibly get this wrong” bugs right alongside incredibly complex ones.

So on top of the effects you describe from the way corporate environments work when it comes to IT security, you now have something that will randomly introduce some of the most basic security mistakes imaginable (for example pushing access credentials plain text into Github).

Then to add insult to injury, in a software development process where vibe-coding was introduced to reduce manpower costs (meaning that now there isn’t enough manpower for humans to get to know and understand the codebase and do manual bug tracking and fixing) bugs are fixed by re-running the code generation, which doesn’t actually reduces the number of bugs, just replaces old bugs with new bugs (as the probability of introducing bugs remains the same across code-generation runs).

Further, people actually produce fewer bugs as time goes on, both because of their increasing familiarity and understanding of the code base and because they themselves first learn to code better and eventually even start learning to design software in ways that reduce the probability of mistakes, whilst the AI doesn’t learn and the best you can do to try and reduce bugs is to make sure there are certain instructions always in its context and hope for the best.

In summary, even on a “couldn’t care less about IT Security” corporate environment LLMs increase the security flaws in the code base, never actually get better at doing less of it and, worse, are just as likely to produced stupidly basic and easy to exploit security flaws as they are complex and hard to exploit ones.

I think it’s more that unlike with developers in general, the statistical distribution of errors in AI generated code is Uniform Random, meaning that unlike with human produced code reviewers can’t just concentrate in checking for certain kinds of mistakes to catch most stuff, they have to dive equally deep on everything and, yeah, that includes checking for stupidly basic mistakes since those are just as likely for AI to make.

This also means that automated testing (such as unit testing) has to cover everything, not just focus on boundary conditions and corner cases - AI can just as easilly create bugs in “nobody would get this wrong” domains as it can in highly complex ones.

This is yet another way in which AI coding just moves the manpower costs from the code creation phase to other phases of the software development process and overall application life-cycle, rather than reducing overall costs.

I would even say that for any software that has a full life-cycle (i.e. pretty much anything that needs to be maintained and upgraded when in Production, so anything but one-off “code it and push it out the door” projects) it seems to be increasing overall costs.

The purpose of fuel taxes in Europe is essentially that, though more broadly for ICE car pollution rather than just CO2 emissions.

“Iran solves Global Warming” was definitely not in my bingo card for this century.

Their current tactic is much better at achieving their true objectives (of getting rid of all Palestinians) than a robot that pursues single individuals ever would, so from their point of view the latter isn’t at all an alternative for the former.

To fix the bugs with targeted regeneration, you have first to find where there bugs are, meaning incurring the cost of understanding the generated code.

By the time you track down were the bug is you might as well just fix it by hand yourself.

I’ve pondered on the feasibility of using codegen to manage projects done by codegen and the problem I see with that is that regenerating a project just replaces known bugs with unknown bugs rather than actually fixing bugs, plus the user interface will also change even if the requirements specification is so complete and well done that it manages to have the same features, and user really dislike that plus there are actual costs in retraining people to use a whole new UI.

This is the point I’ve been making on this shit for 2 years - LLM code generation reduces the costs of code creation by adding massive costs in terms of reviewing and maintenability.

LLMs don’t do software design, and that includes things like designing for maintenability.

That count is not Palestinians killed by Israel, it’s Palestinians killed by Israel whose bodies were brought to a Hospital and officially identified (i.e. matched with their state issued ID number).

Israel blew up most of the Hospitals. They also targetted the emergency vehicles that amongst other things brought the victims to the Hospitals and stopped fuel from getting into Gaza so those vehicles still intact couldn’t operate and similarly for the diggers that could be use to dig up people under destroyed buildings. Israel also has been blowing entire appartment buildings (often using the 2000lb bombs provided by America and known for their massive collateral damage) en masse, so many many corpses were never dug out from the rubble, especially by the point of the war when there were far more than just a few appartment buildings blown up (and all that takes is to check Google maps nowadays to so just how massive the percentage of blown up appartment buildings is by now).

So the real number is likely many times larger than those 75k, possibly by a factor of 10.

In fact an estimate of the deaths published in the Lancet Medical journal at around 1 year after the start of the war placed the number back then at around 200,000 (edit: as per the info provided by Garfunkel@lemmy.ca below it’s 186,000 - see here).

Remember that for every person who gets up from their arses and actually attends a demonstration like this there are a lot of others who agree with them but just don’t go there, especially if like in this case they have to go to a different city to attend the demonstration.

So 200,000 people in a country of 18 millions attending a demonstration in Amsterdam only for something which is not even going to bring them personal benefits (so it’s entirelly about Moral and Ethics) is yet another indication that Public Opinion in Europe is massivelly against Israel.

Yet politicians in Europe do just about everything they can to support Israel.

Now, Israel specializes in hacking smartphones and digital espionage in general, plus they were involved with Epstein and his massive international pedophilia operation that targetted VIPs worldwide.

Further, the later Neoliberal era seems to have a lot more corruption in politics than before and a lot more normalized (now generally of the “politicians ‘by any amazing coincidence’ retire from power straight into millionaire non-executive board memberships in companies they helped when in power” kind, rather than the good old “brown envelopes stuffed with cash”) even in countries which used to have a history of being cleaner than average.

So it’s quite likely that a lot of European politicians are being blackmailed by Israel after the latter gathered lots of kompromat on them via their digital hacking and surveillance operations and in some cases even via their pedophile honeypot operations.

Certainly that would explain the desperate support for Israel by European politicians in countries with Humanitarian traditions which are directly against the murderous ultra-racist actions of Israel.

I suspect that the lessons learned then shaped the strategies used now for progressive candidates to win and probably even for which kind of progressive candidates were supported (it’s my impression that this round of progressives are much more leftwing and much less centrist liberals that constantly blow identity-politics whistles whilst not talking about poverty and general inequality).

This round was even more reliant on grassroots support than previous rounds, for candidates who were against inequality in all its forms (including some openly calling themselves Socialist) and for electable positions that were a lot harder for the Democrat Party leadership to interfere in the choosing of (unlike with Bernie’s Presidential primary, were even shit like super-representatives was in play to stop him).

Generally “criticizing anybody that does anything” - which is the easiest thing imaginable because nobody is perfect so there are always imperfections to criticize in their work hence any idiot can criticize the work of others - is the entirety of Far-Right politics and if and when they get any power they fuck things up since they have no clue how to actually do anything properly.

The Far-Right aren’t makers, aren’t builders, they specialize in criticizing makers and builders, with the only kind of “doing” they’re good at being destroying the work of others.

This applies everywhere, not just the US.

I suddenly had this image of a catholic priest blessing the servers with holy water.

You would be able to figure out which ones were tainted by Hell due to them releasing smoke when in contact with the holy water.

That position is the product of one’s “I’ll do this quickly” whishful thinking.

With experience you start figuring out when something isn’t going to be quick as you look into it, at which point you get a chair.

With even more experience you start training other people to solve their own problems before they come to you with stupid shit they could have solved themselves, as well as designing your own shit that’s meant to be used by others to avoid things like “magical sequences” (you have to call X, then Y, before you can do Z), properly handle common mistakes with good error messages that in some cases even tell people how to solve it and other such features to make it less likely for there to be usage errors and handle them elegantly when they happen in order to reduce the support load on you.

I don’t think “eat melon rinds because they have fiber” is quite the culinary education you seem to think it is.

I’m from Portugal, known for the Mediterranean Diet, and from what I see here compared to living in countries like Britain, culinary education is not about using the unpleasant parts of veggies for their fiber, it’s using fresh veggies in the first place.

That’s the problem I saw with the poor in Britain - they’ll eat lots of cheap carbs and not enough vegetables.

Using the unpleasant parts of the veggies for fiber (which is not a nutrient as the human body cannot break it up or absorb it, it’s just filling and keeps your digestive system clean) is just poverty.

This article is definitelly not about teaching people to eat the right things.