NaibofTabr

It’s about fucking time someone did.

Kristen Welker has more balls than half the rest of the media put together.

Hmm, OK could be interesting…

O… K…

Um…

Yeah… that makes sense…

That’s intended behavior, right? Let me guess, you used the project to vibe code the web page?

Good show mate, off to a brilliant start.

No, we’re talking about companies scraping hundreds of millions if not billions of labor hours of output to train their models for the sake of developing software products which they then sell for profit.

Every model that was trained on legally acquired free public data and open source code should be freely publicly available and open source.

Every model that was trained on not legally acquired public data (e.g. Meta’s models) should be taken out of production until all of the lawsuits are concluded, and hopefully the parties responsible are put out of business.

I’m not talking about future, potential labor that AI might replace. I’m talking about the labor which was stolen to produce these models in the first place.

But, please use AI.

Please identify the issues with the LLM generated code.

Why would the issues be obvious and easy to point out? Most issues with code aren’t. If they were, we wouldn’t have Patch Tuesday, a direct code review would prevent issues from shipping in the first place.

Throwing this out as if it means LLM code is acceptable and ends the argument is ridiculous. Do you have any grasp of how software vulnerabilities are discovered at all?

There are serious and skilled people out there who use LLMs responsibly.

There is no “responsible use” for a platform built on the largest form of labor theft ever devised.

Ohhhh… computer says no…

I did the freakin’ math and got it right the first time.

That is awesome.

Hmm…

1. Discourages voting
2. Username is “GuyFawkesV”

Are you 13?

Sure, but as I already pointed out above, it’s very relevant for an article titled:

China develops iron battery 80 times cheaper than lithium that can last 16 years

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. While iron may be 80x cheaper than lithium, the iron battery built with this design will not be 80x cheaper than an equivalent lithium battery, because it will require substantially more material, as well as additional mechanical complexity (liquid pumping).

You’re responding as if I’m criticizing the technology. I’m not. I’m criticizing the sensationalist writing of this article that is intentionally manipulative of the reader.

Hmm, there’s no discussion of what the energy density is compared to lithium-based battery chemistries. In articles about new battery designs, that usually means it’s pretty bad. This will have limited value if you need 10x battery volume/mass for equivalent energy storage, primarily only for grid-scale systems, which the article specifically mentions near the end:

The development arrives as the international race to develop iron-based flow batteries accelerates, with the technology increasingly viewed as the most viable successor to lithium-ion for large-scale grid storage.

I’m guessing these batteries are heavy and bulky compared to an equivalent LiPo. Probably safer than the molten sodium grid storage systems, so that’s good.

On the other hand, while lithium may be trading at 80x the price of iron on the market, you’re going to need a lot more iron than you would lithium for each unit of equivalent energy storage, plus it’s going to take up more space (real estate). The eventual storage system will probably be somewhat cheaper than an equivalent lithium system, but won’t fit everywhere, especially developed urban areas due to larger space requirements, and definitely won’t be 80x cheaper, even if the iron/lithium price ratio remains the same. It won’t replace lithium batteries in mobile applications (vehicles, electronics, etc) or anywhere that physical space is at a premium.

The article is written to sound overly positive about this protoype, with a sensationalized headline, while not mentioning the drawbacks, and just hoping that the reader is to too ignorant to notice.

*Edit: Also, the picture attached to the article is bunk. Flow batteries require a pumping system to circulate the electrolyte fluid, which comes with a long-term.maintenance cost:

[…] all flow batteries include auxiliary components such as pumps and valves, which do require a regular maintenance cycle.

Fail to plan, plan to fail.

Whoosh.

So… He’s either incompetent or intentionally malicious. Those are all of the options. Either way, he should be standing trial for high crimes against the Unites States and its allies.

So… your idea is to have an organized general strike that includes everyone while not informing anyone ahead of time?

Can we get 4chan to start a new rumor?

“Anti-vax parents make children autistic”

you can’t really bomb a supply chain

Fuck yeah you can, hence my example of bombing ball bearing factories.

Train lines are also a classic bombing target. Fuel production/refining/storage/transport, any kind of logistics hub, shipyards, airstrips, warehouses… all things that are difficult to hide because there’s always activity around them. Flatten them and the dependent supply chain grinds to a halt.

China and Russia both trade heavily with Iran and don’t care about embargoes.

Also even if they could produce everything they need within the country, that doesn’t mean it’s practical to produce it all in one location. At some point you have to pull raw material out of the ground and refine it, and you probably can’t get everything you need all from the same hole in the ground. You probably can’t manufacture electronics very well next door to a mining and refining operation. There’s going to be truck routes or train lines and logistics facilities somewhere.

Supply chain. Drones are complicated pieces of equipment, they can’t possibly be manufacturing all of the components locally.

During WWII the Allies brought the German tank corps to a halt by bombing ball bearing factories.