Naming your energy-guzzling "just throw more agents at it" thingamajig after a location in the post-apocalyptic Mad Max universe is certainly a choice.
No, pre-emptively starting another war is not a good idea. But yes, the West should work hard to make sure their enemy loses the war it has already started.
Not if you're self-hosting and running your own trusted code, you don't. I care about resource isolation, not security isolation, between my own services.
Completely agree. There are some apps that unfortunately need to care about some level of security isolation, but with an open workers they could just put those specific workers on their own isolated instance.
I don't trust devs who can't operate outside their IDE. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it reminds me of useless Enterprise Java drones who are helpless without Eclipse and can't debug anything.
From the embedded systems end, VSCode really feels like the new Eclipse.
For decades embedded CPU companies would look at visual studio and say, "Boy howdee if we only had visual studio for our chips!" But they wouldn't be willing to put in the effort to do so, so they'd start with Eclipse, and the C/C++ plugin, and hack in a JTAG interface, and maybe a few code generators to pin out the hardware and say, look at us we made an IDE! And that IDE sucked, not because of eclipse, but because nobody actually put the work in to make it useful. You'd get lime breakpoints but not memory breakpoints or function breakpoints. You'd get a call stack but no way to inspect your RTOS. Every chip vendor did it themselves, so every tool was wildly different even for a big standard ARM core.
VSCode for embedded is the same thing, just in JavaScript. With AI!
This is such a wonderful guarantee to offer to users. In most cases, I trust the Debian maintainers more than a trust the upstream devs (especially once you take into account supply chain attacks).
It's sad how much Linux stuff is moving away from apt to systems like snap and flatpak that ship directly from upstream.
"Washer" and "dryer" are accepted colloquial terms for these appliances.
I could even see the humour in "washer-bot" and "dryer-bot" if they did anything notably more complex. But we don't need/want appliances to become more complex than is necessary. We usually just call such things programmable.
I can accept calling our new, over-hyped, hallucinating overlords chatbots. But to be fair to the technology, it is we chatty humans doing all the hyping and hallucinating.
The market capitalisation for this sector is sickly feverish — all we have done is to have built a significantly better ELIZA [1]. Not a HIGGINS and certainly not AGI. If this results in the construction of new nuclear power facilities, maybe we can do the latter with significant improvement too. (I hope.)
My toaster and oven will never be bots to me. Although my current vehicle is better than earlier generations, it contains plenty of bad code and it spews telemetry. It should not be trusted with any important task.
A woman from 1825 would probably happily accept that description though (notwithstanding that the word “robot” wasn’t invented yet).
A machine that magically replaces several hours of her manual work? As far as she’s concerned, it’s a specialized maid that doesn’t eat at her table and never gets sick.
Negligible cost compared to a real maid in 1825. The washing machine also doesn’t get pregnant by your teenage son and doesn’t run away one night with your silver spoons — the upkeep risks and replacement costs are much lower.
In 1825? Certainly not one that ran on electricity, much less something that had meaningful safety features.
I used to play with a Maytag machine machine motor. It had a single cylinder, ran on gasoline, and had a kick-start. It was from, IIRC, 1926.
The exhaust would have been plumbed to the outdoors, but other than that the expectation was that there would be a gas-fired engine running in the house while the washing was done.
In 1825 both electricity prices and replacement costs would have been unaffordable for anyone, though. Because there was literally no prize you could pay to get these things.
The point is that, as far as development of AI is concerned, 2025 consumers are in the same position as the 1825 housewife.
In both cases, automation of what was previously human labor is very early and they’ve seen almost nothing yet.
I agree that in the year 2225 people are not going to consider basic LLMs artificial intelligences, just like we don’t consider a washing machine a maid replacement anymore.
I get mad at semantic arguments that distract from creative output.
Aside from the obviously humorous content the rest is useless allegory (I want a recipe not a story and need some code, not personal affection for software engineering) and no true scotsman (no true adherent of my native language would call it a robotic maid!)
Net immigration is down. That counts illegal immigration and deportations, presumably which are way down and way up, respectively. Both stats have nothing to do with how many people _want_ to be in the US, just how many people are able to get here.
How long is the of _applicants_ for residency in the US? That's the metric you're looking for. I suspect, with the increased difficulty in illegal immigration, that there is an increase in applications for legal immigration. That's speculation though, I have no idea where to get those numbers.
