However a better API (to me) that I would have written was:

    crypt_error_t crypt(...args, char *result, size_t resultLength) 

But POSIX API is not something well designed, it dates back to the '80 so... probably today would be written completely differently

The opposite. The amount of bugs that I've seen AI add to software is tremendous, some bugs are things that even a 18 years old that starts working as a developer right after school wouldn't do.

Also they are unable to fix them, if you ask them to fix a bug they probably introduce 3 other more, and so on, and you arrive quickly at the point that the code is a mess of spaghetti that needs to be rewritten completely (by a human, this time).

On the opposite side AI is good at finding bugs, so I use it more as an advanced linter that tells me if I'm doing something wrong.

How it's not? Copyright means that you, the author, owns the rights to a software, a song, a book, etc. and you give permission in form of what is usually formalized in a license to other people to use your copyrighted work in some ways. You decide what people can do with your copyrighted material, and what it's not expressively allowed in your license it's not permitted. Moreover everything you create (even this comment!) as by default a copyright, and if you don't say anything the copyright is intended to be exclusive (i.e. you can't do anything with it).

Now, unless your license doesn't expressively say that you are granted the permission to use that copyrighted material to train an AI model you can't. To me it's clear, I don't know how someone could think of the opposite. What copyright has for example a webpage? If it doesn't have a license associated with it that is compatible with scrapping it and training an AI model that operation is illegal.

Otherwise you are saying that it's a crime for me to download a book from the internet, but it's not a crime to take such book and use it to train an AI model then then has all the knowledge that is present in that book? Does make sense to you?

Of course there is the argument of "fair usage", but could we consider "fair" taking systematically entire software to train on it AI models?

And before you say "but humans can study a software", it's because the license of such software allows it, but the key is that it allows humans, in no way you could for example state that the GPL license allows it to be used as a training source for AI models without the consequence of any of the output of such AI models being considered derivative work.

Not humanity, a small number of people in this planet, will benefit about this, because now they no longer have to depend on under payed workers to do the job, and will use AI to make the lives of all other human being poorer.

I think that we need to oppose this tech dictatorship, first thing stopping using AI and thus stop depending on an handful of companies that are able to provide it, that while they gain more and more power we all gets poorer.

What was wrong in using our brain, in the end? I still use my brain on my job and I always will, maybe one day they will say that there is no more need of computer experts because AI can do everything (still people bring me their laptop to reinstall Windows, something I've done for 20 years and that AI didn't change), I will just find another job but I will refuse to use this AI shit.

Otherwise AI becomes a glorious copyright-laundering machine, use something that you want to copy to train an AI, then ask that AI to replicate the stuff it was trained on. Of course it will make a perfect copy, but who is the creator of that intellectual work? The AI itself not for sure, but the original author of the stuff that the AI copied.

An no, it doesn't matter if the AI doesn't copy exactly but does a bit of shuffling of stuff, if not you are arguing that it's not cheating if you copy the homework of your classmate but you rearrange some words to make it not identical...

One of my coworker that uses a Mac has an issue with a USB dongle that stopped working randomly, not even with a system update. If he uses on its laptop the external monitor remains blank, the same dongle with another monitor and another identical Macbook with the same macOS version works, the same dongle with the same PC and another brand of monitor works, the same PC with the same monitor and a dongle of a different brand does work, but a different dongle of the same model doesn't. So I guess for some reason macOS saved the ID of that dongle and the setting got corrupted. Tried to reset the hell of it and it doesn't work.

I've never had similar issues with Linux. Most of the time when something doesn't work with Linux you just look at the logs, figure out what is wrong, correct it, and it start work fine again. Configuration of the system is predictable, if you install a software and then you uninstall it the system is left in the same state as before installing it, it doesn't leave files that waste disk space, as well as when you upgrade the system (yes, every Windows or macOS update leaves old stuff behind that it's impossible to delete, effectively "leaking" disk space at the point you have to perform a clean install).

Big tech want to tell us that AI is great because it can write code faster than what a human can, the problem is that code is shit, is full of bugs, and is not maintainable.

Reason why my company decided to stop using AI for code that gets delivered to customers, the customer find bugs, he is not happy, you have to use time to fix bugs (for free, because it's under warranty), so we waste time, and produce code that is not easy to evolve. And even if AI is faster to write code, developers are less motivated to work, so they will just waste time on the internet while being focused on the task, and thus again, there is really no save of money.

To me all of this doesn't make sense, we want to use AI to make the work instead of US, but even if we achieve in that the result of it gives benefits only to an handful of people that are already too much rich, while the world gets polluted with all the CO2 that is produced by AI tokens, people looses jobs and gets poorer. This idea to me needs to be opposed.

Under these premises is very difficult that something not implemented correctly is really exploitable, and moreover it's simple to verify the security of the whole thing.

Opening a JIT, that would mean mapping memory pages as RWX, would open the door to all soft of exploits that now are not really possible.

Also, you are telling me that you can get only with voice interaction an AI to write well engineered and maintainable code, something I've yet to see an AI be able to do, to me the result that they tend is at best the same of a junior developer, except that the junior developer learns, the AI continues to make the same mistakes (because it's context is limited, when it's full it's full).

Of course you can still write plain CSS.

Now to load a simple website that in the past was a few kB of HTML, CSS and JS you need to download Mb of JS code. Now the browser needs to use Mb of RAM just to display a stupid webpage.

For what? It was better when we had PHP pages that did produce HTML on the server side.

Another thing to me that we have to get Meta discredit for, not something good in any way.

You can't study them, you can't modify them, you can't improve them, you can't look into how they are built etc.

It would be more efficient to give the chatbot context the source files, in a format that is more efficient for that (Markdown documents, for example) and that will of course contain the internal notes, that are stripped during the build of the public HTML version.

Why a chatbot should waste resources in parsing a public webpage for the same information that you have internally in possibly a more appropriate format?

Also having a check for user agent/IP to do so is still inefficient, because you can't serve static HTML/CSS/JS and thus you have to do processing work on each request, a thing that doesn't make a lot of sense for static content of this kind.

To me the difference is that we moved to more efficient ways to generate heat, more specifically from electric resistive heating to heat pumps. Both in home heating but also appliances (e.g. cloth driers).

And of course there is climate change, not only we generate heat more efficiently (an heat pump uses at least 1/3 to the power to generate the same amount of heat) but also the climate is less cold, thus less heat required. That is the big difference, not bulbs or computers.

Of course for nations that are more hot in the summer (e.g. my, Italy) the reverse applies, that is more power used because of air conditioning, that 30 years ago nobody had and now it's required since last summer was 25/38C outside for 2 months straight.

A person that doesn't have anything to hide is happy to leave it's money in a bank where, under EU legislation, it's guaranteed up to 100k euros per account (so you can have multiple accounts in multiple banks so you are safe), that is no matter if the bank goes bankrupt, the money is stolen, or whatever else you will have your money back.