Nvidia is the ultimate beneficiary of the money invested (due to expensive GPUs). If Nvidia loses these good customers, it will have less revenue. So it prefers to slowly buy it's customers with this money...
I get that, but what I'm saying is that it's anticompetitive as heck. In a fair system, profits from NVDA's revenue growth should've been distributed to shareholders as dividends or reinvested into the company itself, not buy its own customers -- that's my (and countless others') biggest gripe with the whole AI bubble bs.
Antitrust regulators must be sleeping at the wheels.
I'm very happy that "AGI office workers" will use Microsoft products - so I don't have to do it anymore... But: they will not pay a dime for the licenses...
Basic yes, but drones are precision strike weapons by necessity: they can't carry enough payload to kill everything in a 50m radius for example. They depend on generally nailing a single target with cm-level precision.
And all that stuff is a new supply chain and more weight which isn't payload.
That a countermeasure can be built doesn't mean it's necessarily effective to do so - your drones get less cheap, less numerous, you have to incorporate such systems into tactical and strategic planning.
You're talking about a counterdrone system that's at technology demonstrator stage. I don't think they even have any contract or timeline for delivering production systems. Meanwhile tech used in the Ukraine war is adapting by the month.
"That a countermeasure can be built doesn't mean it's necessarily effective to do so" applies especially to reading a corporate press release about a system doesn't even have a timeline for being on the battlefield.
The difference between LLM and a very junior programmer: junior programmer will learn and change, LLM won't change! The more instructions you put in the prompt, the more will be forgotten and the more it will bounce back to the "general world-wide average". And on next prompt you must start all over again... Not so with junior programmers ...
This is the only thing that makes junior programmers worthwhile. Any task will take longer and probably be more work for me if I give it to a junior programmer vs just doing it myself. The reason I give tasks to junior programmers is so that they eventually become less junior, and can actually be useful.
Having a junior programmer assistant who never gets better sounds like hell.
The tech might get better eventually, it has gotten better rapidly to this point and everyone working on the models are aware of these problems. Strong incentive to figure something out.
Ahaha you likely haven't seen as many Junior Programmer as I have then! </jk>
But I agree completely some juniors are a pleasure to see bloom, it's nice when one day you see their eye shine and "wow this is so cool, never realized you made that like THAT for THAT reason" :-)
The other big difference is that you can spin up an LLM instantly. You can scale up your use of LLMs far more quickly and conveniently than you can hire junior devs. What used to be an occasional annoyance risks becoming a widespread rot.
My guess is that you're letting the context get polluted with all the stuff it's reading in your repo. Try using subagents to keep the top level context clean. It only starts to forget rules (mostly) when the context is too full of other stuff and the amount taken up by the rules is small.
