a recent attempt to rewrite SQLite in Rust using AI. “It passed all the unit tests, the shape of the code looks right,” he said. It’s 3.7x more lines of code that performs 2,000 times worse than the actual SQLite. Two thousand times worse for a database is a non-viable product. It’s a dumpster fire. Throw it away. All that money you spent on it is worthless."

Insurers, he said, are already lobbying state-level insurance regulators to win a carve-out in business insurance liability policies so they are not obligated to cover AI-related workflows. “That kills the whole system,” Deeks said. Smiley added: “The question here is if it’s all so great, why are the insurance underwriters going to great lengths to prohibit coverage for these things? They’re generally pretty good at risk profiling.”

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I mean, on the one hand, its SQLite.

    On the other hand…

    … arguably the entire point of a database language is to efficiently handle complex workloads.

    And then when you remember that… this was a project, in development, that cost time, money, energy, made RAM prices go up by maybe ¢22 per GB all on its own…

    This is an insane negative return on investment.

    Like imagine if you paid the same amount of money to … people, a contracted firm, and they handed you this.

    You’d potentially be firing them or suing them for breach of contract, blacklisting them as far and wide as you could.