Enjoy

(TL/DR: They're *generalizers*. They learn to *generalize* problems.)

No. AI tools are not collagers. That is not how they work.

Yes, they do "learn to think". (albeit in rather alien manners sometimes)

It's not the size of the code. It's the tiny little parts of that code that are most used and least efficient. You might see significant performance improvements with a little custom inline assembly code which don't effectively change the size at all.

However...

"At worst this app should be written in C++/Qt or WX, and should take up about 50MB. " If you wrote this in assembly language, it would probably be under 1 MB. If you care about memory. But 1MB of assembly code is a beast.

Nonsense. There are a specific set of *mature* Li-ion chemistries - namely, iron phosphate and NCA/NMC. There are no mature Na-ion chemistries. We do not know what kinds, if any, of Na-ion chemistries will mature to be competitive. Current low-volume production is not competitive. There is no non-subsidized Na-ion production that is at all price competitive with li-ion. Manufacturers readily admit this in interviews and quarterly reports. The hope is that with scale and chemistry advancements they will be. The collapse in lithium prices has sapped a lot of the optimism from the market about this.

I'll accept the coined word "talenteds". But you are not more "creative" just because you have a talent.

And for the record, most professional musicians today buy riffs or entire backing tracks from others and also outsource the mixing and mastering to third parties, so they can honestly lay off people for outsourcing part of their work to AI.

By "the results", you mean an entirely different, unprotected work?

Doesn't work. Your mislabeled data will stand out like a sore thumb on loss graphs. They'll automated ditch the bad labels, and potentially automated-regenerate new labels.

In fact, my chatbot promissed it never hallucinates.

Who are these asshats that bought the company and what other companies are they contaminating?

The way I've been putting it is AI is going to end up filling the exact same role access databases did 15-20 years ago. A way to create a "good enough solution" for some small function in a business to get started that then rapidly approaches unsustainable as the technical debt starts to pile up and the fundamental limits of the technology start to show themselves. Then suddenly you need to start doing a "Business transition" that takes millions of dollars of developer time to clean up.

Also I'm pretty sure it's illegal to make anything good with javascript.

1. Energy requirements to keep a car sized object airborne is totally handleable. I mean, just about every commercial jet is a lot bigger than a car.
2. Noise pollution - can be handled

The real problems is, as you mentioned, training, as you'd need a pilot's license for it, and that development has continued for both planes and cars - such that a hybrid between the two is going to be very lousy at both. It's not going to be crash resistant like a car, nor fly as well as a dedicated plane. The engineering for that is too much at odds with each other.

That said, have you seen the development stuff for drone taxis? Basically, there are places looking to sell flying taxi services using upscaled quadcopters.

We actually passed break even a number of years ago, so "never going to get more out than you put in" is already proven false.

Now we need sustainability, and a much better than break-even such that we can generate more electricity, enough to justify the plant.

I'm still not convinced that it wouldn't end up being like the scifi back in the '50s or so where the power plant ended up being on Antarctica and shipping power to the entire world because, well, it's a system that scales UP well, down not so much, so the practical plant design ended up being darn near terawatts.

But after 40-50 years of listening to fusion energy promises, I'm pretty cynical.