The best you can say is: "no evidence found of non-efficacy for these 3 diets. Effect sizes comparable to within 10% of each other."

There's no way to interpret this as "x diet is the best"

If IP is real, then the AI companies have performed flagrant theft.

If IP is not real, then the algorithms and weights the AI companies have developed should also be free as they are just more information.

The status quo of "your knowledge has no protection, but our knowledge is sacred" is the worst of all possible worlds.

The problem is it all looks the same, and those of us who are terminally online are exposed to it non-stop. AI slop seems to be poisoning every space that used to have quality conversations, and mass un-employing many creative professions.

People do have the right to vote with their feet though - it is perfectly ethical to support coffee shops that support the local artist community and avoid ones with AI "art". Too bad we've mostly lost the ability to rationally discuss things, instead of resorting to threats right off the bat.

AI is also very good at scanning legacy codebases, and reverse engineering design docs, system interfaces, and trying to reverse engineer what requirements and design tradeoffs lead to that system. It's not perfect, but already at medium software engineer level.

Partially, but also I don't think current AIs really have any judgement of right and wrong, they just see chains of reasoning between ideas. This is the deeper issue, there is no way to sanitize the data or training to fix it. Current AIs are fundamentally unsafe, and only become more unsafe as they become more powerful.

This is temporary though; other teams are fully embracing AI in their processes, and it's really only a matter of time until all teams use it. We have C-suite instructions to promote AI adoption. AI will slowly creep into software testing, verification, and eventually the requirements management and software development itself. I'm working on some of the pilot projects.

Create a standalone prompt to

The latest AIs will print out a long prompt with all of the assumptions, tools, and general files it plans to use. Review that, and then run the whole prompt in a new context.

25 years of corporate development beat that enjoyment out of me. AI is just the final nail in the coffin. I have no enjoyment left in coding; I firmly believe the current crop of programming languages will go in the same vein as human written assembly language did.

I don't believe the current LLM-based AI will replace most other jobs, but I think it is well suited to completely replace much of programming/IT and morph it into an unrecognizable job role.

More troubling to me is the focus on pre-2022 data. This indicates that the companies are seriously worried about model collapse, where the future models become worse becuase they are being fed by generated data instead of real human data.

This is actually my worse case scenario for AI: the models become good enough to disrupt entire industries in the next 10 years, but then stay frozen at that level. Model drift then kicks in because the world will keep changing but the models do not, and in a few decades we actually regress instead of progress becuase they won't be enough skilled humans to drive advances.

Time will tell of course, and it’s early, but inflection points do exist with progress.

Even in areas with multiple competitors, they can (and do) effectively collude by getting their information through data brokers and third parties.

I don't have a solution, but we are currently very far away from a free market in general.