It's not a moral panic.
People like having someone to pick on (because it means they aren't being picked on themselves).

Three more years.

The article is written in a way to CYA of the people involved. It spreads the blame around without being too specific, so no one knows what was going on. For example, it talks about "the null pointer" but that's the only mention of it. At best that doesn't make sense gramatically.

They also talk about "This policy data contained unintended blank fields" but leave it at that. Why did it contain unintended blank fields? How did they get in there? It doesn't say. Is it a problem? Are they hand-writing this policy data?

Are they going to take measures to ensure that the "unintended blank fields" don't happen again? No, they are not; based on what is written in their document.

Was the report written by AI? It's probably too short and concise, but the grammar and disconnectedness makes it feel that way.

Amazon is largely populated by employees who got there as their first job out of college and don't know any better. So more children than gentlemen.

Here you go, youngin'.

ok lol. You claim you are a mathematician, but here you are using motivated reasoning.

I've written things in Java and in Swift, and you aren't going to see an 85% difference. Swift has a lot of its own weird verboseness going on.

In an extremely heavy allocate/free environment, GC in Java will take something like 10 minutes out of every hour. Which is significant, but you shouldn't see a 40% increase in throughput from that either.

Someone else suggested they were probably parsing JSON/XML repeatedly or something similar, which is possible considering 'parsing' is just a simple function call.

What's the alternative? It sure isn't Python.

You're talking theoretical things here, not practical reality.

No one has ever made an ANN that plays chess at a level that is superhuman. AlphaZero is still primarily a tree searching algorithm with an ANN used to evaluate every node of the tree.

To remove the tree search, the ANN would need to be VERY big.

LLMs are trained in an inefficient way to learn anything. How many billions of pages did you need to be trained how to read?

I know a student who brings them into tests.

"An argument about the world is interesting. An argument about a word is not." I can't find the origin of that quote.

How many pages of chess instruction do you think ChatGPT has been trained on? How many pages do you think it would take for it to play a decent game of chess?

I pulled out an Atari and did that.

The Atari won because it didn't make any mistakes in the summary.

Usually not into offshore accounts. You are completely wrong here.

When someone buys stock, the money goes to whoever sells the stock. And they use it to buy something else.

What percentage of loans made by banks are bad? Show you can think.

It's like the clock problem on steroids. Not all the required positions are in the training set of images. With the clock, you can easily just increase the number of images in your training set. With the chess problem, you can do that to some degree, but there are more positions than planets in the universe, so you won't have enough disk space.

Chess is a problem where you need to be able to tell the machine "these are the rules" and have it follow them. Humans can do that, the LLM can't.