I did have a similar thing happen to me a while ago, though it was on Android.

My work used gmail for email at the time and so I added the account to my phone in order to check work email. Then I kept seeing applications installed on my device which I did not install. I uninstalled them but they kept coming back, and eventually I traced it to them being associated with my work account. IT said that they shouldn't have been installed on my device because I wasn't on some list, but they were, and they continued to be reinstalled every so often.

So I did the only sensible thing and got rid of the work account and email from my phone.

You don't need to look at the entire program at the assembly level to figure out parts that you want to optimise or prove for correctness. You do need to look at all the code the LLM generates in order to understand it.

You can learn to understand the patterns that compilers spit out and there are many tools out there to aid in that understanding. You can't learn to understand what an LLM spits out because by design it is non-deterministic and will vary in form and function for each pull of the lever.

You can learn to understand how high level concepts in code map down to assembly language and how compilers transform constructs in one language to another. You can't know that about LLMs because they generate non-deterministic output based on processing of huge low-precision tables.

It's not even a close comparison.

I dunno, I'd rather proofread (or better yet just test) LLM-generated code than have to reason about assembly. You can't just look at part of the assembly to prove that the rest is right, especially if it's hand-written, or maybe just -O3. But anyway compilers are not what come to mind when someone mentions LLM coding.

I agree that the problem is volume, even more so than correctness.

All that LLMs and other generative models have done is enable an order of magnitude more stuff to be created cheaply. This then puts the onus and cost on the consumer of that output, hence why everyone is exhausted after a day of work that just involves looking over output. This volume of output will cause people to stop looking at all of the output and just trust the randomly generated code, and in time the quality will suffer.

Standard article saying that the reason Europe is reliant on massive US companies is because the EU makes it difficult for companies to get to that same size, and that it is a bad thing.

How about if it's working as intended - that the EU doesn't want a handful of trillion dollar companies but instead a plethora of small and medium sized companies instead?

Massive companies in the Silicon Valley model, especially but not limited to the massive LLM companies, have proven themselves wholly unable to follow laws let along the rules. So why make it easy for them to get to that scale?

> if it's working as intended

It doesn't seem to be working as intended. Look at the reports published by European leaders, like Draghi for instance.

Ah, but can they tell the same tales as you can? Maybe in time when their beard starts getting grey in it, but that time is not now.

That makes sense that if they want to move the company to have only AI actually write code then offer retirement to people that resist this directive.

Though based on the headlines that I've seen regarding Azure development I'm not confident that they would end up in a better place if this ends up happening.

But maybe who knows, they might open source the NT kernel as there will be nobody left to maintain it within Microsoft.

He said many times that he keeps his blog with at least 6 months of articles in the backlog. So even if he goes we won't know until months or maybe a year later.

I think that's also one of those problems in stories like this, that there's a powerful tool with the power to corrupt but only those chosen few by right can wield it without becoming corrupted.

It implies that there will always be people ordained through some manner which are incorruptible and therefore can use these things to "fight evil". The usual suspects in our world are people in Government, and by extension in military and law enforcement.

One example of someone actually destroying such a device after they finished using it rather than letting themselves be corrupted by it was Batman after he finished using it to locate the Joker. But of course this was in a fictional movie, and in no way represents the real world.

All markets have rules, the "free" in "free market" is just marketing.

(Not disagreeing with you, just mentioning it because your statement inside made me think of it)

Well of course. Free market (even as a theoretical concept) is only possible with regulation that prevents monopolies and ensures some sort of fairness.

The agricultural market is perhaps the furthest thing from it, given the importance of, well, having food. Farmers get subsidies. Nation-states get involved in the circulation of food around the planet. Geopolitics comes into play.

In some markets, individual choices of consumers matter a lot in shaping them.

Agricultural products are as far from that as it's possible.

I am not convinced that not buying unethical meat does any more than not buying unethical weapons of mass destruction, or not using Palantir's products.

Few of us are hoarding stashes of chemical weapons or signing contracts with Palantir, and yet Palantir still thrives.

Perhaps simply not buying it isn't always the most effective way to end something.

Part of me was hoping there would be some sort of official arm mainboard announced, I know there's the third party version but they don't seem to sell the main board only.