The thing is ‘AI’ is a broad net…

So while you do have for example, utility in code generation, that ranges in usefulness to nearly the whole thing to mild completion, depending on the nature of the task. There’s not going to be a full “going back”, but maybe we can hope that people who are flooding with shit software they don’t understand will get over it.

Which highlights one of the major real problems. AI enables people that have shit ideas to make shit content with unprecedented volume. This applies to code, video, text, music. The people that use it to make quality content might be seeing less than 20% more productivity as they keep it on the rails, the people making shit are now able to spew out 1000% more stuff because they just don’t care.

Which in turn drives unreasonable infrastructure demands. So if the former “goes back”, so too does the infrastructure build out.

The misinformation angle though…

Why should misgendering be treated with more respect than the respect given?

You imply they intended some disrespect. They used a default pronoun and when asked to do otherwise they obliged, despite being immediately accused of doing a shitty thing. Folks are being offended on behalf of a person that hasn’t said anything about how that person feels one way or another.

A “could you use a non-specific pronoun instead of masculine when you don’t know” might have gone a long way, but implying some mundane default use of a pronoun is malicious and shitty is just a really excessive amount of vitriol when absolutely nothing was meant by any of it.

I know about singular they, but I don’t like it. Perhaps because there was a movement in my childhood education to “correct” the use of singular they, as noted in that wikipedia article there was significant pressure for hundreds of years to make people not use plural pronouns singularly. I for one wish that a singular, human appropriate, non-specific personal pronoun emerged because singular “they” just grates my nerves.

Note that malus.sh is a satire pointing out something that the companies are certainly very happy about, but the real AI companies haven’t been that forthcoming with the laundering of copying software through LLM.

“I used to feel guilty about not attributing open source maintainers. Then I remembered that guilt doesn’t show up on quarterly reports. Thank you, MalusCorp.”

Chad Stockholder Engineering Director, Profit First LLC

I happened to pick up in the article the neutral pronoun and have avoided it, but to accuse a pretty casual use of a prounoun as being a shitty thing to do is… a shitty thing to do.

Incidentally, I hate the plural pronoun as the stand in for unspecified. Especially when talking about a company versus an individual, it is useful to use the plural to refer to company and a singular for the individual. Otherwise it’s a vague mess. It’s so confusing when folks are using plural to refer to singular people.

I think it’s less being uncertain about the vulnerability and more about being uncertain about all the other drama surrounding it.

This Dormann fellow paints a believable picture of MSRC as an organization ruined by mismanagement and left incompetent and dysfunctional. A very banal scenario of failure that is familiar to anyone with experience with big businesses. Eclipse seems to see a more malicious intent and assumes that MSRC had it out for Eclipse personally from the onset for… some reason.

Eclipse may have found real stuff, but the communication style is a bit unhinged so it’s hard to evaluate the surrounding drama. This unhinged communication style combined with a bureaucratic MSRC could lead to them not being able to understand Eclipse’s attempt to explain.

The question is whether Eclipse was unhinged from the onset or understandably driven off the deep end by malicious treatment by MSRC. Both scenarios are believable, hence the sensible take away that we have one side of the story and while we should recognize that, we must also consider that an alternate scenario played out.

That was my thought, what a absolute mess of a ‘sentence’.

Which is crazy as they also made a big deal about how many users don’t want an AI result and how they are credibly the choice for those people.

I get offering the feature, but insisting upon it while also bragging about how they cater to the majority of respondents that didn’t like it is bizarre…

Google at least is consistent, they just plainly act as of the people who dislike it don’t exist.

Guy at work proposed AI workflow enhancements…

His whole idea was to take a workflow and just replace a few roles…

Developer becomes “AI developer agent” Reviewer becomes “AI reviewer agent” Tester becomes “AI code testing agent”

Rinse and repeat until the only block that was human was “Marketing Engineer”. Guess what department the guy worked in…

Another thing is that it kind of instills a false confidence. Reviewers are getting lazy when the LLM gives a ‘LGTM’ and letting stuff through that bites us in the ass…

Yep, seen this.

Also, each iteration saying “ok, all problems are now addressed, the check should be fine, but running it just in case” (generates even more build errors than before). Rinse and repeat until my token quota is exhausted and I just code the good old fashioned way, no skin off my back. And I’m doing a ‘good job’ with utilization, despite having burned most of my quota on a failure that got thrown away.

Which is a stupid mindset.

“Go forth and burn tokens and your performance will be measured on that”

Looks like I’m going to make a for to ask for a for every word in /usr/share/dict/words. Look at all the tokens I burned.

It doesn’t reflect upon business value, performance, or education.

It’s even worse than the disastrous lines of code metric.

Their problem is they have no idea what to expect, so to signal affinity to hype, they just measure tokens.

Which is insane, as the OS doesn’t have any way to authoritatively measure the user’s age and so they have to be ‘honor system’ where the age is whatever the user says the age is, or require some online account with identity validation, which is what facebook tries to do anyway.

Unironically, a bit. These people are pure ego, and being booed is actually a thing they take great offense at

These folks just don’t get it.

Let’s put aside the discussion of whether their enthusiasm for the tech is merited or not, that is beside the point.

A commencement speaker is not there to talk about themselves or their favorite things. They are not there to teach the graduates anything or try to debate with the graduates.

A commencement speaker is there to honor and respect the graduates. To commend them on how far they have come and express optimism for what they will bring to society in the future. To make them feel appreciated for all they have done and are about to do. To feel inspired by what they have accomplished and the possibilities they bring to society. There has been and will be plenty of opportunity to educate, debate, and convince them, but this is not the venue for any of that.

Speaking about how “awesome” AI is and how they should be grateful for it is disrespecting them by failing to let them be the focus of their own graduation.

designed to respond to the question with some words while not actually answering the question.

Ok, I see why they are so enamored of LLM chat…

Oh sure they have to influence, but I would expect them to do so a bit more on the down low. If they have a whiff of self awareness, they know this will just do more harm than good to their interests.

Hell, that will happen at tens of millions. The magnitude of a billion is crazy.

Even if they are more driven to keep going, others turn to more philanthropic pursuits. Well before a billion the number becomes more like a high score rather than giving any quality of life improvements, so what’s the point of getting more? Most will want to mean more to the world than just some high score. So accumulated wealth starts getting directed away for all but sociopaths that relish the high score in and of itself.

A celebrity graduation speaker that actually has something thoughtful to say that is realistic, relevant, and inspirational to the graduates? That’s crazy, everyone knows celebrity graduation speakers are supposed to be self absorbed and prattling on about the stuff that excites them without connecting to the graduates, except maybe to be dismissive of the graduates and look down on them.

The Wozniak era of Apple was pretty much all upside. Whatever less than nice things to say at Apple almost certainly came about more than a decade after he had left them.