Nice, please hurry up and expand this to all US companies before the dutch government seals the massively idiotic deal of selling DigiD to a US company
You missed the point. The point is that almost all software today follows the same general ideas, patterns, etc.
The quality of the output of AI is not tied to what these patterns are used towards. Even if, say, your tool has a completely new network protocol. An LLM will still "understand" that it is a network protocol, that it serializes following rules that you tell it, serializes and deserializes the way you decide, then it will write that down in a memory and be able to work with that.
A new file format? Same. A very specialized new kind of No-SQL database that fits your very specific tool better? It will also write down in a file how it works and be able to use that.
It's as good as the documentation you give it is. Which, for basic things such as setting up a basic REST API, it has learned in its training data. If it hasn't, it's up to you to provide it, and it will be perfectly able to use it.
Even if you build some weird unique assembly language it will be able to use it if you give it the set of instructions and their documentation.
There are definitely real engineers being strongly anti-AI. The problem, in my opinion, is that they just didn't really try working with them.
They're incredibly powerful tools, and they don't only amplify bad developers, they amplify every developer that really tries to work with it.
The mistake people make is delegating the decision making to the AI. Let the tool be a tool, not a brain. You architect, you design, you order, it writes the code. You review the code. There you go, you have a pretty good quality code, better than most devs will produce, following your design and architecture, you controlled the entire decision making, and you did it in 5x less time.
I also think that it has become too useful to disappear in engineering.
Those are important studies but nothing shocking. The conclusion to draw from them is the same one we've drawn from all technologies that have improved our lives to some degree: Without them, we tend to either be incompetent as losing access to them isn't worth planning for, or we are demotivated because why would we deprive ourselves from technology that makes our work so much less exhausting?
It doesn't necessarily remove our capacity to think (and the article falsely generalises to critical thinking), it shifts what kind of thinking we do.
If AI is as good or better than I am at writing code, then I'll switch my brain to only do the orchestrating and architecture rather than the writing code part. And yes, if you remove AI, then the switch will cause me to perform less than I used to before AI, but not permanently, only until I get used to it again.
If an AI is better than a doctor at finding cancer indicators, then the doctor will focus their mind on finding solutions only rather than splitting it on both the detection and solution.
This is not new, not bad, and I'll even go to the extent of saying it's a great use of AI: Humans evolved for specialization. The less varied the tasks are, the better we are at the subset we specialize in. That's what has driven our rapid technological and societal advances in the past millenia.
But, AI has many issues and many detrimental applications as well, so don't see this comment as a full endorsement of AI.
What do you mean, primarily? You don't need a primary language. You can have it translated in every official language in the EU. It can be translated at scale very easily. As an EU wide project it is absolutely no trouble at all.
I will disagree on the RAM scanning being easier. It is my opinion that the weakest link here is the password store.
The security hole here is a password management system that can work without external secret. It is shocking that this is still common practice and that people use them.
Chrome's handling is barely more secure. A compromised device will have a much easier time reading Chrome's encrypted store than scanning your RAM to find passwords.
Remember that if you don't need to input a password to open the store, then anything with access to your device can also read it.
Wether it's encrypted in your RAM or not barely makes any difference in how difficult the task is.
The only solution is: Browsers should require a password. Or even better: Use a dedicated, properly secured password manager.
Ah, so that's why their website told me I'm living at an address I haven't been at for years even though I already notified them years ago. And why their form refuses to change it.
Yeah, I can't believe I'm defending Microsoft but that's probably what they meant. No browser password saving feature is safe if your device is compromised.
Exactly, that is why authoritarian countries trying to exert absolute control on their internet are still failing!
There is even a category of VPN providers who (directly) collect absolutely no information from you and accept all kind of payment methods, some not traceable or at the very least not blockable. So even if they do respond to government requests... They have nothing to give.
Controlling the internet is a very delicate task and that's why laws are always tiptoeing around it. There is a sweet spot where you control just enough without inciting people to go pay shady services that you have zero control over
Nice, please hurry up and expand this to all US companies before the dutch government seals the massively idiotic deal of selling DigiD to a US company