I've yet to come across a human developer who's output would meet this standard, despite writing every line.

In fact, having an LLM review our code is catching quite a few bugs before it reaches QA.

This, at least to my understanding, runs contrary to the spirit of the GDPR regulations. Permission has to be freely given which, when the alternative is paying a subscription, it quite obviously isn't.

It hinges somewhat on the concept of how much you believe things are being learned and how much is just pattern matching and borrowing a solution from memory. Certainly in the early days of Copilot it was possible to get it to output chunks of open source code near verbatim.

I think, generally, people are probably closer to believing that there is some kind of reasoning being carried out by these models than in those early days but it would also be easy to strip all of the immediately identifiable comments etc from the training materials to make it harder to detect.

I do tend to agree. Though at the current pace of change I don't know if we can take it for granted.

As a recent example, I was on a chat with the two most experienced technical people in our company and the original developer of a feature trying to work out why we were getting a null pointer exception in a very specific case. Of course we had a fix, just a guard against the null pointer, but I'm always uncomfortable with not knowing the underlying cause.

I kept digging while someone promoted the fix. Eventually ruling out two of our original theories as to why it happened. Until eventually someone just asked Cursor which spit out a theory which matched the symptoms perfectly and which we quickly reproduced locally.

I still think we'll need some kind of human who lives in that wide space between the 95% of the population who couldn't get Excel to sum a list of numbers and the machines but the industry will be unrecognisable.

AI slop is an easier concept to quantify. It's basically the code for which insufficient people in the organisation have a meaningful understanding of how it works or what it does.

I don't even think they can believe it themselves, it's in reality they are just trying to throw fear, uncertainty and doubt about potentially cheaper offerings.

And with a bit of careful routing - there isn't a lot stopping you sending the hard stuff to a cloud model and the average stuff to an on prem model.

As a consumer you are often sending deposits or even the full cost of goods to companies some time before you receive those goods (in effect you become a creditor). You are also dependent upon some of those companies for service and repairs. It seems reasonable that you can check the finances of a company you are creating a business relationship with, I know in the past I've checked company statements.

You are unlikely to have significant enough sway to force that kind of disclosure. Small businesses as consumers have less legal protection and are similarly unlikely to be able to make disclosure a precondition of a deal.

An A320 might be flying 3 times faster but is generally flying between relatively flat, straight runaways several miles long with approaches typically flown on a stable instrument approach from several nautical miles away. It's control laws mean flying straight or maintaining a particular bank is as simple as letting go of the control stick. If anything the stick and rudder skills in normal circumstances are much less involved. Systems management, obviously the autopilot, but also environmental, hydraulic, navigation an the operational concerns are obviously vastly more complex.

It makes a lot more sense than being investigated by the FBI because you wrote a negative article about the head or being charged for reposting some cryptic numbers.