Also they couldn't be arsed to make the eggs come from the goose's arse.

GOOSE WAS NOT VALUED

CW: slides (and link to the original deck) from absolutely brain-melted SoftBank presentation.

Edit: there is video

Just don't ask it to count the number of Rs in the word ORION, as that will trigger it to turn us all into paperclips and then output the wrong answer.

How does one give an embryo an IQ test.

"we set out to make the torment nexus, but all we accomplished is making the stupid faucet and now we can't turn it off and it's flooding the house." - Every AI company, probably.

“I’m sort of a complex chaotic systems guy, so I have a low estimate that I actually know what the nonlinear dynamic in the memosphere really was,”

I say right before inhaling deeply from a bag in which I have dispensed a hefty amount of spray paint.

also if you could somehow not be into fascism, not have opinions about age-of-consent, not be a sex pest, not be into eugenics/phrenology while you build a browser, that would be great.

This meeting could have been a text document of plausible sounding jibberish nobody needs to read.

to be fair, the plan would have worked if you had included the allotted number of goblins in the box in addition to the packing material.

I just had one of those "brain-doing-brain-stuff-good" moments (I think normal people call them delusions?) pondering about why it is that AI code extruders are seeing widening adoption.

tl;dr - there's a bunch of people uncurious about the nature of the abstractions they use and it's a tragedy.

First a moment of background: My first software dev position was using Lisp and one of the most powerful concepts built into the language runtime was the macro facility, the ability to write code that writes code. The main downsides of Lisp are obsequious Lisp developers and hard-to-master C foreign function interfaces, so what you have is a toolchain of abandoned dependencies made by some real annoying characters, but I digress. The ability to write code that writes code is a powerful concept.

I moved on to working with .Net which sometime around the 4.6 version release got enhancements to built-in language utilities. This led to better code-generators for numerous purposes (certain DI containers started to do dependency resolution at build time for example).

I did Scala for a time, which had a macro facility that was hot garbage and was rewritten between 2 and 3, so I never bothered to learn it. Around this time the orgs I worked for were placing an emphasis on OpenAPI / swagger specs for reasons I don't know because while there was tooling that could be used to generate both the entire http client and the set of interfaces used by the surface, we did neither (where I am at right now we still do neither form of code gen).

Anyways, things like code generation whether via external tooling or internal facilities is magical but it is deterministic magic: Identical input should yield the same result. It is also hard to use well. The ergonomics of the OpenAPI / Swagger codegen tooling is pretty bad though not impossible, and the whole thing under the hood is powered by mustache templates. The .Net stuff is still there and works well, but I don't think many work places want to invest in really understanding that tooling and how it can be employed. Lisp well always be Lisp, good job Lisp. There are other examples of code generation used for practical ends I am sure.

The point is that code generation requires being able to think and define certain forms of abstractions outside of the target functionality of a single program and while it's not hard to do that thinking, it's just high enough of a bar that your typical enterprise engineer won't engage with that (but will always be amazed by the results!).

AI Code Extruders change the cognitive burden that would be required for code generation into something that I guess appeals to engineers. You can specify something in the abstract and a Do-What-I-Mean machine may churn up something minimally useful, determinism be damned. Not only would an engineer not need to consider the abstraction layer between their input and the code but they would be unable to fully interrogate that abstraction because the code extruder does not need to show its work.

Just a thought. Probably a very silly thought.

"we're taking our primary product, a piece of tech used for collaborative development of software, and shitting some AI over it. You are all fired. Please clap."

Honestly, this sort of quote from Goertzel is the kind of thing I would expect as the satirized musings from a pompous character in the Illuminatus Trilogy.

snicker floppy dick drive

This NPR article opens with a banger of a line:

In the past few months, AI models have gone from producing hallucinations to becoming effective at finding security flaws in software, according to developers who maintain widely used cyber infrastructure.

The things still fucking hallucinate, it's not a feature that's separable from the model.

Finally a "fuck everyone involved here" that I can get excited about.

"Claude, write a strongly-worded letter explaining in great detail how upset I am make no mistakes."

If only it was a gong show. It's more like shoveling coal into a dead horse and expecting a locomotive to spring forth

"Pegged in the ass by a physical manifestation of an online forum thought exercise gone horribly wrong" should be a Tingler if it isn't already one.

"It sounds so insignificant when you put it like that, I can hardly believe I'm in a bread line because of a manufactured poly-crisis it was a part of!"

Pull a Rabbit AI and use Playwright to operate an Emacs instance running Eliza. Say that buying more infrastructure will yield better results. Pocket the money that was for supposed infrastructure investment. Profit!