"In 1839 [...] the United States had already defeated Britain’s navy in two wars"
This statement is wrong and trivially falsifiable. Perhaps the author meant that the U.S. had by that point won some naval battles against the British?
Backup snapshots of what though? The defects aren’t being introduced through code changes, they are inherent in the model and its tooling. If you’re using general models, there’s very little you can do beyond prompt engineering (which won’t be able to fix all the bugs).
If you were using your own model you could maybe try to retrain/finetune the issues away given a new dataset and different techniques? But at that point you’re just transmuting a difficult problem into a damn near impossible one?
LLMs can be miraculous and inappropriate at the same time. They are not the terminal technology for all computation.
Non-deterministic behaviour doesn’t help when trying to reason about the system. But you could in theory eliminate the non-determinism for a given input, and yet still be stuck with something unpredictable, in the sense that you can’t predict what new input will cause.
Whereas that sort of evaluation is trivial with code (even if at times program execution is non-deterministic), because its mechanics are explainable. Things like only testing boundary conditions hinge on this property, but completely fall apart if it’s all probabilistic.
Maybe explainable AI can help here, but to be honest I have no idea what the state of the art is for that.
The fatal problem with LLM-as-runtime-club isn’t performance. It’s ops (especially security).
When the god rectangle fails, there is literally nobody on earth who can even diagnose the problem, let alone fix it. Reasoning about the system is effectively impossible. And the vulnerability of the system is almost limitless, since it’s possible to coax LLMs into approximations of anything you like: from an admin dashboard to a sentient potato.
“zero UI consistency” is probably the least of your worries, but object permanence is kind of fundamental to how humans perceive the world. Being able to maintain that illusion is table stakes.
No. You can only cross a rubicon that actually exists.
The world has always been too complex for any of us to understand.
Edited to add: if you find the modern world unintelligible, wait until you study the prehistoric one upon which that modern world still depends. It has absorbed millennia of investigation by the best minds in history so far, with no end in sight.
Easiest way is to press and hold the Touch Bar on the volume control button and slide your finger left or right–that way you barely need to look at the Touch Bar.
This statement is wrong and trivially falsifiable. Perhaps the author meant that the U.S. had by that point won some naval battles against the British?