I am not a fan if AI slop and low effort vibe coding and hate AI images, music and videos with a passion, but it should be pointed out that this study was about re-programming a complete program from scratch, from documentation.
There, all failed miserably. This study was not about smaller work packages or narrower tasks.
The key question is if total costs along the pipeline, from requirements definition down to the final quality controlled fully debugged product can be reduced, at real LLM costs (not with the currently vastly subsidised costs).
That is right, it is a tool. But how useful will it be as a tool once it will be sold by token at real costs, where every mistake that tool makes costs money and we are talking here maybe about 10 times higher costs than people currently pay for Claude, at the minimum.
Add to that the question how the use of LLMs affects the career pipeline from junior dev to senior dev.
There not so many tool analogies where the tool is especially good at making things look good, even if they aren’t when you dig deeper.
I was not talking about erhical companies just companies that can’t just go bankrupt without a trace. Google and Co do actually care about billions of fines. Why do you think US tech fascists are so hysterical about EU regulations. If they didn’t care they would just ignore them
You’d be surprised. When fines are commonly in the billions, they start to care as a matter of fact. At least proper companies do. Criminals with scam businesses are a different story of course.
In the US maybe, I doubt this is legal in the EU. It is most definitely illegal with sensitive data like health data.
They have taken over technological lead with EVs a good while ago. Regarding batteries themselves they always have been in the lead anyway.
Yet many people do pay the 145 EUR for Win 11 home in other PC products, not reading the fine print in the few alternative cases where one actually get the option to not get Windows pre-installed. Yes, I know that large producers can get much cheaper licenses, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t charge you big for it anyway, either openly or just hidden in the final price.
Who knows. Their target group is usually perfectly capable of installing an OS themselves. But Framework is also a popular hardware brand among Linux users, because their hardware is already built with Linux in mind. If you look at their forum, it does not feel like everyone is just installing Windows on their hardware.
Most people are hiding that glass behind TPU. It is pretty pointless other than being a durability weak point. You don’t need glass for wireless charging. You do know that there are alternatived to metal, do you any they don’t need to feel cheap either.
User replaceable batteries do not require phones that are “risky” to use “in a light drizzle”. Decent IP ratings are possible even with those. It is just a question of good design. But such design can’t be really expected by companies pushing glass phone backside for no other reason than that they are prone to break.
Exactly
Not necessarily, if they are more hostile towards that kind of “content” than in this case Spotify, it isn’t necessarily more attractive to AI scammers.
Indeed. Its service is available in only a limited number of countries. Interestingly though it is one of the oldest streaming platforms around.
I personally started to use Qobuz. Their algorithm isn’t great, their target group is more the more distinguished music listener but their library is pretty much as big as any others plus they do have the largest library of hi-res music too and they actually sell also hi-res and CD lossless music if that is of interest to you. Most importantly though, they have a “ban-AI-music” stance on their platform. Soon enough, one will have to rely on platforms like that if one does not want to wade through a sea of AI slop.
The downside is that Qobuz is a bit more expensive than others (while paying the most to artists however, as far as I know).
It is a less shitty alternative to Spotify, while costing less. They are also paying artists considerably more.
Why are you leaving out a key part of my argument? You know you are still talking to the same person, aren’t you.
I was talking about a complete functional weapon in the first post. And in the latter I was talking about the easiest to produce parts alone, which could be oriduced even with something like woodworking tools.
Would you also say that a carpenter can build firearms? Possibly you do, I wouldn’t do that.
PLA is a poor material choice for the application but an easy one. So they might not care. I am not saying that it is dysfunctional, just not a good choice.
PLA hydrolises over time, and becomes brittle and is sensitive to UV, ie day light. It is enough to leave it in a sunny place with some glass reflection for it to soften up and deform but the worst features is probably that unlike many other polymers it tends to fail catastrophically, when it fails, ie nothing much happens until it snaps and splinters. Its impact resistance is also comparably poor.
You seem to run in doors that are open. My whole point was that 3d printing is not suitable to create the functional parts of a fire arm, and by that I mean creating it directly with 3d printing, not some helper products and I also mean for hobbyist levels. Maybe with metal 3d printing etc more is possible but that is neither easy nor cheap nor readily available in anyone’s basement. It is easier to get your hands on a CNC and probably cheaper too.
If your argument is that for what 3d printing can be used, it is a fairly easy method and can enable cost effective low number production, yes it can. So yes, if you will, then it has made it more accessible for those things. If someone want to regulate private firearm construction however, just regulate private firearm construction. Don’t outlaw open 3d printers, CNCs or if we are at it, woodwork tools.
Interesting read. I did not know about the honestly horribly ineffective (if not outgright dysfunctional) legislation in much of the US in this regard. I was however having functional arguments in mind though. The functional core components of a Glock are not made from organic polymers, for a reason.
Yes, printing the frame of a firearm is perfectly feasible. But if you don’t know your tool and its materials, you are putting yourself at risk. It is really like with all those other tools that can produce such a frame just as well. But then, if you say most people print it with PLA you might have a strong point that most people 3d printing that don’t know what they are doing or don’t care about PLA’s serious limitations for that application, and do it anyway.
PS: I wouldn’t consider using a 3D printed jig … and ECM as a part being produced by 3d printing. A helper part is for producing it by other means is 3d printed. Again, plenty of alternative methods to do so. Are they all going to be restricted?
“unsupervised” means that AI (Actually Indian) is driving those things, most of the time, right?