Vulkan shaders used by NMSâŚaffected? My PC has done strange things since it was enabled.
Time to worry when it tries to bomb Washington.
Would you like to play a game, Professor Falken?
This seemed odd, and I did a bit of digging. It does not appear that NTC Vulkan (The russian corporation) is related to the Vulkan API, which is an open standard created by the Khronos Group. Gathering information about both, I am pretty convinced this is merely an unlucky coincidence in naming.
Thereâs a couple of things to be said here. For one, we have been using code generators for decades now. Usually they were just specialised to generate very specific code for very specific frameworks, so you donât have to type or copy-paste the same boilerplate over and over again.
For example, it has been possible to generate sql code and adequate code to integrate the database directly into specific frameworks, all from a UML. I work with spring-boot, the times I actually write any code that queries the database are extremely rare. I do it when I need a highly specific, optimised query, but all the rest of the query code is generated for me.
So, having a thing that generates handy code is a pretty old hat in the industry. ChatGPT is probably the first (usable) code generator that can generate code to solve more general problems, even write very small applications in their entirety, but thatâs not actually as useful as one might think.
The problem is, the most expensive things about code is not writing code. Theyâre integrating new code with existing code, and maintaining code. We have developed a multitude of tools to help with these, and are rigourously trained on reusable patterns and structures to make code more unuversally understandable. Unless itâs a specific requirement, we also ruthlessly sacrifice efficiency and performance in order to make code easier to read, easier to debug, and harder to introduce bugs to.
When writing new code, maybe a third of the time is spent to write code that works (and at least a third to half of that time is spent writing tests). Easily a third is spent on thinking about how the new code is supposed to integrate into the existing systems, and probably another third is spent on taking the code that works and refactoring it until it fulfills all the requirements concerning structure and readability.
ChatGPT awfully sucks at most of these things. It can be very handy to get an initial solution to a specific problem, but then youâll still have to refactor and restructure that, you still have to integrate it with your existing code base, and you still have to write tests for it. So, under ideal circumstances, chatGPT can safe you maybe about a 6th of your work, and probably half of it you will lose again because instead of writing the code yourself, you have to spend the time to understand what chatGPT delivered.
It can be a very handy tool in certain situations, but nowhere near as gamechanging as some people tend to think.
That is a relief
This reminds me of an old joke:
âI hear your dog learned to play chess. Thatâs amazingâ.
âNot really - I can beat him two games out of threeâ.
Iâm just saying that when measuring time (and money) saved on the job, chatGPT ranks lower than many tools we already have. Itâs not revolutionising the industry anytime soon.
So, if you are the head of the comission to protect the world, you are in the best position to bring it under your control. I would pack my bags and head for Mars but, it would likely be run by Musk.
ChatGPT is very much a Mk1 âproof of conceptâ technology, and itâs been deliberately crippled. There are things itâs not allowed to know, questions itâs not allowed to consider, and answers itâs not allowed to give.
Itâs not ChatGPT that worries me - itâs the future technology that springs from it. And you can bet that somewhere in the world, itâs already in beta.
@TravelEcho commented:
And I tend to agree. So here we go:
Will this stop bad actors using similar technology? No. Banning public access just allows politicians to bury their heads in the sand, and pretend the problem doesnât exist.
From the article:
Iâm surprised that theyâre (Microsoft) taking a whack-a-mole approach to security vulnerabilities in chatbots
Uhm yeah⌠I hate to break it to them, but thatâs kind of all cybersecurity has ever done. And itâs a hard problem to solve in and of itself. A team of a couple hundred engineers just canât match the raw creativity of a couple million motivated criminalsâŚ
The full stack? Looking forward to the fireworksâŚ
This is so close to home, I am tempted to goâŚwhy I have never watched a launch in person, is a mysteryâŚwell, I say close. It is about 11 hours away but, I am the sort who loves to hop in the car and take off without much forethought. 
. I have a friend in Houston. I really need to do this one day.