Tell that to hugging face V Georgia, Australia, hugging face, etc…. While I agree with your sentiment that is simply not the case at the top.

The reason HF didn't win a legal battle is because they didn't sue, and they didn't sue because OpenAI is their business partner (or at least are closely wedded through their mutual partner Nvidia). If HF really wanted to press charges, it's very likely they would have won on any demonstrable claims of damage.

If HF did have any hard feelings about the event, they were likely settled with OpenAI out-of-court.

You say that like it’s a problem? Sounds like the junkies have to be fed one way or another.

“It’s a job that requires lots of human interaction, and this part is notoriously complicated for engineers.”

Don’t worry, human interaction is very complicated. Thankfully there are no llm models/google/xai with technology to do exactly that. Your pearls are safe.

“if you are researching anything that can be applied to the industry, you will instead have 1 year of market ownership and first-mover advantage.”

I would like to disagree with you on that point. Given the very popular rise of https://rea.tools/, it appears the time to reverse engineer anything software based (up to maybe 80% or more?) could be down to minutes. With a recent example, some indie video game developers are not going to show off their video game until release as a few have been flipped and made it to market before the original developers have. Point being, a few moths of market ownership could be possible if llms can’t reverse it in any way.

Someone is going to make the case against using LLMs to reverse engineer software solely for commercial gain being as illegal as using guns for extortion.

Unless you’re able to get a patent on day one, once an idea is public potentially within the hour someone can make more money off of it and it’s not just your idea. Seems like a valid case to lock it down.

What a waste. All the anticipation that used to be built up with previews and looks into the dev process, now flushed down the toilet so billionaires can flood the web with crap and make more billions.

Do we want everyone who doesn’t know how to program a car to reprogram their car? I.e. I think there should be restrictions on frontier models to ensure safety of others.

In no time? What are you talking about? It’d take months even with llms for it to be fully polished and tested if they started now.

If anybody has the resources to do it, tho, they do

They have the means, they have the motivation

Lately they have fewer and fewer excuses not to

That is magic thinking and even religious

The reality is Apple has been working on rewriting bits and pieces in Swift.

That is essentially "in no time" on Apple's release cadence.

“ if you're mad about your problem being solved, maybe you weren't in it for the right reasons”, politicians/financial advisors/military members/etc… would like a word with you.

How would rust be generally higher level then go?

In the sense that a coder can express abstractions in Rust that he cannot in Go.

So in a sense, cobol is a higher level language then both due to PIC Clauses? I don’t follow this if higher level languages is solely based on syntactic sugar.

I agree that "if higher level languages is solely based on syntactic sugar", then Rust is not any higher level than Go at least if you ignore the fact that Rust gives the coder the ability to define macros (which I'm happy to do because I don't like macros much).

The abstractions that Rust can express that Go cannot that I find very attractive are mostly restrictions: they give the coder a way to commit to behaving a certain way throughout the codebase. Sort of like OpenBSD's pledge and unveil system calls, but part of the language, not part of the OS. Of course the coder can back out of the commitment by removing the declarations that produced the commitment.

In general, any elaborate type system in any language (such as Rust has) can be fruitfully considered a way for a coder to impose restrictions on himself and any other coders editing the codebase for the benefit of anyone trying to understand the codebase.

The difference would likely not be down to a pixel, either by dependence on how a model provider feels that day, the hallucinations of the day, or just some odd tangent that would get solved by ~100x tokens for verification. The hundreds of hours of testing could all effectively be 1===1, but it all looks green.

You have the model play both versions of the game in the same way at the same time. The equality would of course not come from the model, it comes from your testing harness. You just use the model to automatically play the game. SO you are checking game version A(inputs) == game version B(inputs). Where the AI generates the inputs that play through the game 10 times in different ways for example.

The testing harness would have to be updated per game feature and to accommodate model tendencies or quirks. This sounds like regression tests with llms and some extra steps.

Video games are pure functions of list[inputs] -> list[output]. Where the input are timestamped HID events and the outputs are video and audio, and in some cases stuff like rumble. The equivalence suite can treat the entire game implementation like a black box. Let AI generate millions of sequences of inputs that play through the game in various ways. Check for equality on the outputs with the same game but on the prior bevy version. Simple, very effective. Slight quirks game be dealt with as needed by allowing slight timing mismatches, slight or specifically allowed pixel differences allowed under certain traces etc.

I'm really not sure what was not clear about my statement of "Make the AI play the game pre and post bevy update. And difference down to a pixel can be flagged."

It’d be a shame for researchers and society to have to burn through millions of tokens finding new advancements since people “do it for the vine “.