Just assuming this is all true (i.e. that AI can do good and bad code outputs), why would Linux development be able to succeed at something that Microsoft (which has an insider track with AI, far more money, and far more maturity) failed at?
Motivation is powetful influence on devolopment. The linux kernel is largley driven by UX and desire for technical excellence (there are ultier motive from some major factions but overall this is true and actions are judged publically as such).
Microsoft is, like most companies, driven by stockholder value creation.
One produces an enviroment in which cautious adoption of new tech is constant, a slow trickle for use where it seems most applicable.
The other demands that the perception of exclusive capital be created through vertical intergration with propritary IP and that the promise of cost reductions are underway. Aka Microslop trying to add a buzz word to every IP (percieved capital creation) and promising massive layoffs.
Could be a lot of reasons. A big one i see working at a large company myself is that AI needs to draw from a lot of data to do its work. A huge amount of contextual data too. A company like MSFT inevitably needs to provide AI with a walled-off curated set of data, and prevent any of it from leaking. Its AIs will not have the same amount of data an AI can draw from outside MSFT.
Leaking? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI. They pull the data in and don’t need it to go out. The whole industry is fighting to close off competition, meaning they know they’re on top.
So do you have any reason to assume the open-source community’s use of these (closed-source) other models is somehow bucking all real-world evidence to the contrary, or are we just hoping and praying?
Just assuming this is all true (i.e. that AI can do good and bad code outputs), why would Linux development be able to succeed at something that Microsoft (which has an insider track with AI, far more money, and far more maturity) failed at?
Motivation is powetful influence on devolopment. The linux kernel is largley driven by UX and desire for technical excellence (there are ultier motive from some major factions but overall this is true and actions are judged publically as such).
Microsoft is, like most companies, driven by stockholder value creation.
One produces an enviroment in which cautious adoption of new tech is constant, a slow trickle for use where it seems most applicable.
The other demands that the perception of exclusive capital be created through vertical intergration with propritary IP and that the promise of cost reductions are underway. Aka Microslop trying to add a buzz word to every IP (percieved capital creation) and promising massive layoffs.
Could be a lot of reasons. A big one i see working at a large company myself is that AI needs to draw from a lot of data to do its work. A huge amount of contextual data too. A company like MSFT inevitably needs to provide AI with a walled-off curated set of data, and prevent any of it from leaking. Its AIs will not have the same amount of data an AI can draw from outside MSFT.
Leaking? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI. They pull the data in and don’t need it to go out. The whole industry is fighting to close off competition, meaning they know they’re on top.
So do you have any reason to assume the open-source community’s use of these (closed-source) other models is somehow bucking all real-world evidence to the contrary, or are we just hoping and praying?