I spent 1500 hours building an app with AI coding assistants. The code compiled and tests passed. But it was full of silent issues: patterns violated, conventions ignored, technical debt accumulating invisibly.
This is the hidden cost of AI-assisted development. The code works today. The codebase becomes unmaintainable tomorrow.
I built a tool to prevent this, then benchmarked it across 5 different AI models. Key finding: top-tier models don't need help writing working code. They need help writing code that belongs.
Full analysis and open source tool linked below.
I wonder how much of the people that are being upset about an option that recognizes landmarks and that is build in a privacy minded way are using chatGTP, windows, google or socials
The writer of the post admits that he doesn’t understand the very tech lite explanation of Apple nor read about Apple AI in general and the way it was setup. A lot of people are upset that (maybe, but unlikely) Apple knows that you made the 10 billionth photo of the Golden Gate Bridge. But continu using all sorts of services, living in sec camera heavy cities etc.
Not an apple fan but from all big tech corporations they have the least amount of interest in mining user data from a business perspective
there are many types of a wrong answer, and the difference is based on how the answer came to be. In case of BS/Hallucination there is no reason or logic behind the answer it is basically, in the case of LLM, just random text. There was no reasoning behind the output or it wasn't based on facts.
You can argue if it matters how a wrong answer came about ofc but there is a difference
I get the idea but the "science" is based on reports it doesn't look like this has been tested with actual malware. Would be interesting to know how well it works
Also make it OSS and ask for donations. Not sure what your feature earning model is but is seems easy to replicate and as point out several times right now it asked to blindly thrust you
Freedom of speech is really important but every person has a moral responsibility to use this right responsible. it is a bit akin to: the right to bare arms doesn't give you the right to shoot anyone you like.
So you should be able to criticize the king/ president but does it mean you should say anything that pops in to your mind? Defending racist and other hate speech with the first amendment is a banalisation of the first amendment.