Apple offer LLMs, so they are already on board with the LLM arguments.
I have many frustrations with LLMs, mainly around the type of user whos brain shuts down, but Apple would be walking a very fine line if they offer a service that they also will sue you for using.
Perhaps they should have used the Foundation Models to build their code. Really put Apple in a difficult position.
I generally assume Wine cannot use LLMs considering developers that have been in contact with Windows code cannot contribute and LLMs almost certainly were.
No such reference to LLMs possibly being trained on Windows code however. Well maybe AI companies were careful to remove problematic data from the training set.
That would be a stupid application of the rule, it would mean no developer could use an LLM for anything that already has a proprietary alternative with heavily documented internals or leaked source code.
Not so sure, if the LLM has been overfitted and can just throw back something equivalent to the original code, then it's no different from a human having seen the code and writing something similar afterwards.
On another hand, I'd be curious about Microsoft's reaction if somebody let an agent write a "perfect" Windows emulator/compatibility layer eating away at Windows's market share (assuming that's possible; since it does not exist it's probably not currently). Would not do much for kernel anti-cheats but would help for productivity software. Microsoft could either choose to say this is not a white box implementation and take down the project but it would hurt anything LLM-related since all LLM-based projects could be targeted, or let it live and eat away at Windows (I suspect they'd choose the latter because it's the shiny new thing and would probably not hurt Windows that much).
I wonder what Windows would be like if it was split off Microsoft. Technically it has far sufficient revenue to keep being maintained and updated well, but I guess the quest for ever more revenue would still lead to it becoming more and more enshittified.
I wonder what it would become if it was split off Microsoft and given to two competing companies.
Right the sad thing is that Microsoft is a great place for an OS to live because they have the money to make the right calls... they just don't seem to have the will to do so or the ability to identify someone to own it. The company has devolved to a core cesspit of middle-management.
I don't want to read LLM written text (EDIT: just replying to parent comment, not implying at all that the tutorial might be written that way; it definitely does not look like it). It would be nice if people could just disclose when they used LLMs for their writing and how, then people who care can skip and people who don't can read. Of course this would have to come with not shaming the people who disclose actual use of LLM, otherwise we're back to square one.
Ah, sorry, I was only replying to the above comment but did not mean to imply that the tutorial might be AI-written; it very much looks human-written and generally a nice read :-)
Successful massive nuclear and renewable deployment at world scale, would it have happened, would have only solved one third of the problem. Agriculture, construction and all carbon-emitting industry processses (steel production) require their own solution too.
Sure, my point is that it would not have been enough to divert climate change, though it would have probably bought a few years/decade and allowed public discourse to move above "nuclear vs wind power" while burning more and more coal, and start discussing other problems. (on another hand, everything that public discourse touches gets politicized to stupidity so I'm not sure if I'd rather have the public choose how to decarbonize concrete production or some magical alternative that does not involve the general public talking about it).
https://www.unslop.news/ has been a breeze of fresh air to avoid all the LLM news. I don't care so much about them but there's so much LLM-adjacent content that it requires actual effort to find the non-LLM stuff.
The parent was objecting to the syntax allegedly forcing one to use “positional references into a list you have to count by hand”. Being inaccurate in your criticism just makes it appear questionable as a whole.
The issue is you're usually using inline asm for special cases, or else CPU features so new the compiler doesn't know about them. Which means it also doesn't know the clobbering rules.
That's why it looks like an escape hatch. It is one!
reply