They hired some uninspired losers to lead their self-driving efforts. They basically were weak, looked into it and figured it's impossible.
There's nothing wrong with knowing your own limitations and acting accordingly. Had Mr. Zuckerberg had that sort of self-knowledge, he might have avoided lighting 80-billion-with-a-b dollars on fire and renaming his social media company after a technology that nobody wanted.
Sounds like you're not defending Access so much as ODBC.
It's mighty convenient for you that your claim makes it impossible for you to provide evidence of this outrageous claim.
... is not let AI get into the hands of people like Bill Gates. That, however, is impossible.
And human drivers are NOT, "on average, really bad".
That is true, but it's a little more complicated than that.
The average driver is pretty good, 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% of the time, they are tired, or angry, or momentarily distracted, or just looking the other direction from where they need to be looking under those particular circumstances. It's those occasional blips of inattention that cause lead to most accidents occurring.
It's not even a legal stretch to do so. If I encourage a 6 year old to drive a car and there is an accident, I'm legally on the hook for the lot of it with criminal charges on top. Why shouldn't the AI companies face the same liabilities?
Moving from 1024 to 2048 when 768 is broken is one thing. But so far, quantum computers have only managed 6 bits and had to cheat a bit to do it. It took longer than a child with pencil and paper would take. The new improved quantum computers that were going to do better than that some 6 years ago just kinda didn't happen. We'll get 'em next year?
The fact that this RSA weakness is not based on quantum computation is irrelevant
It's extremely relevant. An actual computer that we can build today can exploit the new RSA weakness. We have no computers today that can run Shor or Grover and the timeline for one that can on a useful scale is somewhere between years and never.
Also how we got to post-quantum when quantum computers have yet to factor anything faster than a 6th grader with pencil and paper.
You are both done laughing and not done laughing.
But I value even a 1 line change that clears a static analysis warning if even in practice it was impossible to trigger the issue in a real system.
Yes, I agree. The problem with thinking "this bug seems harmless, because I can't imagine how anyone could exploit it" is in the "I can't imagine" part; my imagination is limited to what is covered by my mental model of how computers work, but an attackers' ingenuity is not.
In particular, the C/C++ optimizer is a devious beast, and will exploit any opportunity to make the code more efficient, even if that means doing things that are wildly unintuitive to a naive human reader -- and it sees any instance of undefined behavior as an opportunity to exploit.
(C) is the only one of those the AI companies are really concerned about -- they want to stave off model collapse for as long as possible. The problem is that AI generates so much content that the ratio of AI-generated data to human-generated data keeps rising, and sooner or later there simply won't be much human-generated data left to anything to consume. At that point they'll either have to figure out to ingest AI-generated content without causing degradation, or they'll have to accept that AIs have gotten as smart as they will ever get, and it's all downhill from there.
If they would reprocess it, much of that 3.6 million pounds would become either valuable nuclear fuel or totally inert scrap.
The rest would only last 200-500 years before becoming totally inert.
"Just the facts, Ma'am" -- Joe Friday
