You can still be a proponent of change and discuss these changes with local politicians and what not without being on a 24 hour news IV.
However, looking at the current political climate in my own country, I too have lost faith in them solving local and global issues. When the people I can vote for don't actually solve pressing societal problems, then what's the point? Now factor in the influence of people in large countries that are in power that I can't even vote for...
There is a glimmer of hope that the EU now seems to have finally found some balls somewhere though, with their response to the Greenland situation. Maybe they've finally learned that a strategy of appeasement does not work for strongmen in power (hey, that sounds familiar...)
Designed and made in Sweden. Geely also produces Volvo designs in China also, but they try to keep all the R&D in Sweden to take advantage of what they actually paid for. Polestar is much of the same, although I think it has more Chinese influences.
That was some rumor that was circulating for a short while, but it's unsubstantiated. Polestar just got a 600 million dollar loan from Geely too.
Some people have even speculated that it's Volvo that wants to go independent, but comments from the returning, unretired CEO that they want to do more sharing of tech makes that less likely.
Why is it hard to criticize people for being part of a scam operation? It's so morally and ethically bankrupt that it's really easy and valid to criticize someone for
Who is being scammed? The only people buying into tokens as obscure as these are degenerate gamblers who know very well that it's not any kind of an investment.
It doesn't have to be black and white. I use the agent just as another tool in my programming tool belt. It shines especially in the boring repetetive tasks that would otherwise not be done because I can't justify the needed time. The choices arent just "no agentic AI" and "vibe coding only", there is a middle ground.
I think the issue is that there is a lot of work that is low value but not low risk. It has always been danger to give that to juniors (or have too many juniors) but it at least trains them. If AI adds more juniors then you are basically making a bad resource setup along the lines of the interns are free model.
I think in the end people will realise AI is not a silver bullet that will solve all problems and make all software engineers obsolete. Instead it will just become an extra tool in our toolbelt right alongside LSP, linters/fixers, unit test frameworks, well though out text editors and IDE's, etc.
When the bubble has burst in a few years, the managers will have moved on to the next fad.
It's definitely helpful for search and summarisation.
In terms of prototyping, I can see the benefits but they're negated by the absurd amount of work it takes to get the code into more maintainable form.
I guess you can just do really heavy review throughout, but then you lose a lot of the speed gains.
That being said, putting a textual interface over everything is super cool, and will definitely have large downstream impacts, but probably not enough to justify all the spending.
> On 6 January, Guildford told MPs on the home affairs committee that officers had found this material through a Google search that did not involve use of AI functions. "We do not use AI," he said in evidence to MPs.
“I had understood and been advised that the match had been identified by way of a Google search in preparation for attending HAC. My belief that this was the case was honestly held and there was no intention to mislead the committee.”
Maybe in a court of law, but "lying" is generally understood as making an untrue statement from a position of supposed knowledge, which this certainly is. It's an often used trick to make an absolute statement about something and then when later found out, they deny that they knew the specifics despite being in a position where that knowledge would be very much part of their job. Accountability is what we need rather than weasel words and assurances that can't be trusted.
I think you're being disingenuous as that's just one meaning of "lying". From your supplied link there's also:
an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood.
The point is that it was part of his job to know the answers to the questions put to him by the MPs which is why they were asking him those questions. If he didn't know the answer, then he should have made that clear, though that should also be grounds to get rid of him if he's that useless. If he wasn't deliberately lying (i.e. unintentionally lying), then that suggests incompetence and would be ample grounds to get rid of him.
Anyhow, I'm not interested in arguing semantics as the MPs were misled by him and it may be impossible to determine his exact state of knowledge at the time or his intentions.
Fair enough - I wouldn't have used the term "blatantly" as it does seem as likely down to incompetence. I think that public officials need to be kept to a high standard of accuracy when responding to MPs. I've mentioned in some other thread how this can be compared with the Post Office scandal where the Post Office (can't remember who in particular) made explicit statements to MPs about the accuracy of the Horizon system.
reply