I would like to have the opportunity to consider a decentralized consensus algorithm that could accommodate nation state adversaries regularly. Not simply something cryptographically secure and distributed but something which can retroactively route around nodes who are temporarily bad due to external circumstances.
As someone on a team with a less stringent code review culture, AI generated code creates more work when used indiscriminately. Good enough to get approved but full of non-obvious errors that cause expensive rework which only gets prioritized once the shortcomings become painfully obvious (usually) months after the original work was “completed” and once the original author has forgotten the details, or worse, left the team entirely. Not to say AI generated code is not occasionally valuable, just not for anything that is intended to be correct and maintainable indefinitely by other developers. The real challenge is people using AI generated code as a mechanism to avoid fully understanding the problem that needs to be solved.
Exactly it’s the non-obvious errors that are easy to miss—doubly so if you are just scanning the code. Those errors can create very hard to find bugs.
So between the debugging and many times you need to reprompt and redo (if you bother at all, but then that adds debugging time) is any time actually saved?
I think the dust hasn’t settled yet because no one has shipped mostly AI generated code for a non-trivial application. They couldn’t have with its current state. So it’s still unknown whether building on incredibly shaky ground will actually work in real life (I personally doubt it).
My m1 16gb pro gets throttled (and manually restarted) every time vs code hits 100gb ram usage when running jest unit tests. Don’t know who to blame but 99% sure the problem is my source code and not the machine.
Considering he's got a 16GB of RAM, this is virtual memory, and most programs don't need to keep it all loaded at all times (if they do, you'll notice with constant paging exception handling).
That's an utterly ridiculous assertion (at least in the US). All one needs to do is claim "job creation" and "increase the tax base" and there will be thousands of small/mid sized town desperately courting your investment dollars, even if you're up front about "this will probably poison your town for centuries and turn your kids into zombies".
If that were enough, I think we'd have a lot more nuclear plants in construction.
The problem with this theory is it takes too long between the step where the boosters sell the town with job creation and when the plant can't be cancelled. If you get a city on board today, chances are you won't have a permit in 10 years, and you need to keep them on board the whole time until the permit is issued or they'll derail the permit. It's better to keep them on board at least until the reactor is fueled... but once it's fueled, the jobs engine will probably sustain itself.
My dad was a civil engineer with a specialty in hazardous waste handling. 10 years was not at unreasonable to get a landfill permitted, built and operational, and there's little new technology involved (unlike hypothetical micro-reactors). And yet, they always had a line of small towns lined up hoping to get one. I think you underestimate how long it takes getting anything substantial and potentially hazardous built in a municipal context.
Giga datacenters plopped down in unincorporated areas and small towns will bribe local officials, suck up all the water, raise local electricity rates, pollute the air with on-site natural gas generators, and given the opportunity, play Russian roulette with SMRs.
Actually, these datacenters are much, much worse in different ways if you'd consider they are much bigger, louder, and resource-intensive. While hypermarts put local business out of business and take up comparatively less land including parking lots (while still being huge), their effects are bad but in different ways, especially given they abuse low wage workers who require government subsidies (indirect corporate welfare) and when they leave suddenly they create food deserts.
I was thinking more of how Wallmart also has a history of 'influencing' local officials to overlook the damage being done, as well as getting small towns to take on huge debt loads for 'required' infrastructure upgrades, all in the hopes that there will be a windfall when they set up shop. But sure, they suck in other ways and if you need some relative shittyness metric then ok I guess.
