I dunno; it seems to have worked for smoking. Use and demand fell massively, social approval vanished, now pretty much only losers smoke.

It could be argued, but that would be pretty silly, as the demand is clearly there to begin with, and couldn't really be any larger.

So ... super cheap code monkeys are being replaced by LLMs?

There really isn't any other way to read that.

It's not unreasonable in and of itself.

The question is how it will be applied. Is it going to be just random bias against LLM assistance, or is it just going to be reasonable code quality standards? (Which ... should have been in place anyway?).

It seems to me that, if you were developing something like this, you'd want to write the encryption and decryption code separately from the non-trivial key management code, so that you can unlock it easily if someone accidentally locks the wrong system. You only make the build that doesn't have an obvious key when you're really going to use it. For that matter, it's probably wise to do your demos with the version with the master key, so that potential affiliates can't attack a real target for the demo. Then you give the version that doesn't make it easy to unlock to paying affiliates who aren't SentinelOne. It's not like they'd need to redesign the whole system to generate a random key and not write it in plaintext anywhere.

I don't think "US tech" is really the problem here:

The target has relatives back in China. China says play ball, or your sister gets it.

Silicon wafers are the wrong thing to compare against. The CZT semiconductors are like photodiodes (for other radiation), not what they make the logic out of. It would make more sense to compare with InGaN (for blue LEDs), which plays a similarly specific role in common devices.

... is that it consumes standardized, structured text, has a consistent UI, etc.

This sounds ... like not that.

Well, actually, yeah, if he's not a citizen.

Why should we continue to tolerate a criminal guest?

These days, the market is more trusting of the statement that better tools and processes require fewer employees to serve the same customers if you call that AI. If you get more of your customers to succeed in using your website or app to do what they need without having a human do anything for them individually, you don't need as many employees doing it. But the market doesn't want to hear that you can cut jobs because your website doesn't suck as much any more, so you say AI and they think you've done something futuristic when you've actually done something practical, and you're vague enough about it that the SEC can't say that you claimed to be doing something you're not.

Yes, there are a few useful corners of social media.

And you could watch symphonies on TV too. And educational stuff. But kids didn't, did they? Or those who did were a rounding error.

And then of course there's the fact that social media is a million times worse than TV ever was. You wouldn't let your kids wander down every dark alley of every city on earth, so why would you let them wander every corner of the internet?

Really ... so what?

An overwrought social media post is "inauthentic"?? A political speech or protest tirade is "inauthentic"? Seriously?

I mean, as if they weren't that way ... before chatbots?

... could be replaced by an email conversation.

But then, arguments would actually have to be made (from something other then enthusiasm), and could be considered dispassionately. And everything would be in writing. We can't have that!

This is what drags meetings out, usually.

It's especially lame when there is some meeting protocol that requires everyone to speak."Um, yeah; I agree with the last ten people that we should do what the powers that be have already decided we should do anyway".