Then they should decide not to treat certain things and have better criteria around that than choosing to bury their heads in the sand and letting people die out of their ignorance.
I know Xcode might struggle every now and then with some of the things you're talking about and I'm not saying that I don't have any feedback for Apple, but Xcode is one of the most powerful and well designed development and instrumentation environments I've ever used.
I can't say you hear a lot of folks on other OSes with other IDEs saying "I wish I had Xcode". There was a minute when MonoDevelop was trying to emulate Xcode but that must be over a decade ago.
How many of those people who spend their time using other IDEs on other OSs (where Xcode doesn't run) spend any amount of time using Xcode and therefore have the requisite experience to be able to know that it's generally excellent?
And when you say "you hear", you really mean "you", not "me". I hear it a lot.
I mostly work in games where Xcode is an all too common chore to pick up from time to time because Apple changed the rules on something or other to get an iOS build out. Usually I find that xcode isn't helpful at all in solving these problems. You need to dig through guis because it will not just trivially point you to the text file like VS or Jetbrains would.
It's certainly not a pleasant treat to pick the short straw.
Beyond that, I work with plenty of folks who have dabbled in xcode for mobile or on the side and it's just not seen in that great a light.
Meanwhile, I find that people who love xcode are all in and don't really give alternatives a chance at all (because when you have to use xcode, there isn't an alternative).
Even in this comment chain, we're rejecting other's opinions outright instead of talking about killer features xcode has that others fail at.
Hasn't everybody at least tried everything significant just because? Even the most non-apple developer must have at least checked it out on a friends laptop or something just to be informed of the state of their own business.
If there are developers who are that incurious, all I can say is I don't understand them.
> Hasn't everybody at least tried everything significant just because?
No, not in the slightest. I would call this one the most dangerous and unfortunate fallacies that so many intelligent people have ever accepted and been cheated by. If it were true, you'd know everything important there is to know, and be a master of philosophy, and would have many answers to some basic questions which most people have been told have no good or concrete or verifiable answers.
Personally speaking I don’t get the hubbub around Jetbrains and MS IDEs. Like they’re not bad by any means but they have their own sets of idiosyncrasies and bugs… it just depends on which set you happen to run up against most often in your day to day.
What version did you use? What errors did you see? Don't get me wrong, I've spent 20 years with it, and there was a learning curve - but isn't that the case with many good tools? Again, don't get me wrong, I have some feedback for Apple, and there's a reason why we affectionately call it a harsh mistress. But that doesn't mean it's somehow not one of the best designed, best functioning, and most powerful suites for programming with certain other incidentally very well engineered SDKs etc. And yes, things may have gone downhill a little bit, especially at the scale they're at now. If we could talk about Xcode of, say, 2014, it'd be a less ambiguous conversation.
It's very simple. The model itself doesn't know and can't verify it.
It knows that it doesn't know.
Do you deny that?
Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why? At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile. So it's very simple. And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.
All I asked for was the OP to substantiate their claim that LLMs are not AGI. I am agnostic on that - either way seems plausible.
I don't think there even is an agreed criterion of what AGI is. Current models can easily pass the Turing test (except some gotchas, but these don't really test intelligence).
What people hope 'AGI' is would at least be able to make confirmations of fact and know what verification means. LLMs don't have 'knowledge' and do not actually 'reason'. Heuristic vs simulation. One can be made to approach the other, but only on a specific and narrow path.
Someone who knows something can verify that they know it. An "intelligence" implies it is doing operations based on rules, but LLMs cannot conform themselves to rules that require them to reason everything through. What people have hoped AGI would be could be trained to reliably adopt the practice of reasoning. Necessary but maybe not sufficient, and I'm just gonna blame that on the term "intelligence" actually indicating a still relatively low level of what I will "consciousness".
I don't really follow what you're saying, so I'll keep it short. I have used Claude Opus 4.5 for coding and it certainly has knowledge and can reason.
You're wrong on reliability. Humans are also quite unreliable, and formal reasoning systems in silico can actually fail too (due to e.g. cosmic rays), the probability is just astronomically low.
And in engineering, we know quite well how to take a system that is less than 50% unreliable and turn it into something with any degree of reliability - we just run it over and over and verify it gives identical results.
And Claude Code (as an LLM harness) can do this. It can write tests. It can check if program is running correctly (giving expected result). It can be made to any degree of reliability you desire. We've crossed that 50% threshold.
The same happens when models are learning. They start with heuristics, but eventually they'll learn and generalize enough to learn whatever formal rules of logic and reasoning, and to apply them with high degree of reliability. Again, we've probably crossed that threshold, which is confirmed by experience of many users that models are getting more and more reliable with each iteration.
Does it make me uneasy that I don't know what the underlying learned formal reasoning system is? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's not AGI.
None of the above are even remotely epistemologically sound.
"Or do you think that a general intelligence would be in the habit of lying to people and concealing why?"
First, why couldn't it? "At the end of the day, that would be not only unintelligent, but hostile" is hardly an argument against it. We ourselves are AGI, but we do both unintelligent and hostile actions all the time. And who said it's unintelligent to begin with? As in AGI it might very well be in my intelligent self-interests to lie about it.
Second, why is "knows it and can verify" a necessary condition? An AGI could very well not know it's one.
>And there is such a thing as "the truth", and it can be verified by anyone repeatably in the requisite (fair, accurate) circumstances, and it's not based in word games.
Epistemologically speaking, this is hardly the slam-dunk argument you think it is.
no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together.
and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you.
We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe.
When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said.
The question is not whether an AGI knows that it is an AGI. The question is whether it knows that it is not one.
And you're missing the fact that there's no such thing as it here.
If you go around acting hostile to good people that's still not very intelligent.
In fact, I would question if you have any concept of why you're doing it at all.
chances are you're doing it to run from yourself not because you know what you're doing.
Anyway, you're just speculating and the fact of the matter is that you don't have to speculate.
If you actually wanted to verify what I said, it would be very easy to do so.
it's not a surprise that someone who doesn't want to know something will have deaf ears.
so I'm not going to pretend that I stand a chance of convincing you when I already know that my argument is accurate.
don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI.
and as for my slam dunk, any attempt to argue against the existence of truth, automatically validates your assumption of its existence. so don't make the mistake of assuming I had to argue about it. I was merely stating a fact.
>no, you missed some of my sentences. you have to take the whole picture together. and I was not making an argument to you to prove the existence of the truth. You are clearly bent on arguing against its existence, which tells me enough about you. We were talking about agents that operate in good faith that know that they are safe. When you're ready to have a discussion in good faith rather than attempting to find counterarguments, then you will find that what I said is verifiable. The question is not whether you think you can come up with a way to make an argument that sounds like it contradicts what I said. (...) don't be so sure that you meet the criteria for AGI
Sorry, I'm not interested in replying to ad-hominem jabs and insults, when I made perfectly clear (if basic) and non-personal arguments.
In any case, your comments ignore about all of epistemology and just take for granted whatever naive folk epistemology you have arrived at, and you're not interested in counter-arguments anyway, so, have a nice life.
I'm now completely confused. Wallets were drained years ago? So $15B worth of bitcoin was already transferred? From whom to whom? And then why is this entire post considered news, if the wallet is empty?
My guess is that as soon as feds got their hands on the seed phrases they transferred the bitcoin to a wallet they made. The case then ground on for a few more years and now that they have the indictments all lined up, they are actually doing the forfeiture process.
The actual taking of the bitcoin is merely taking custody of the bitcoin. The forfeiture process changes the actual _ownership_. Think in terms of when the feds take cash from a car. FIRST they actually take the cash THEN LATER they file the forfeiture.
When you're under criminal investigation they (1) seize your computer and look at the browser history, and (2) ask Google what you searched for. Pretty simple, routine police work in the electronic era.
I don't know details of how, but it's commonplace in serious crimes. If you spend a little time listening to crime YouTubes, many of them go "oh and he was googling how to get rid of the body". I assumed it was as straightforward as the police gets a warrant to get the info from Google.
Both the US and China does that kind of wetwork. Forgotten about the 1953 coup so soon? Abu Ghraib doesn't ring any bells?
What you're describing is a political deficiency and not an economic one. China is better at free market economics than America, which should be a wake-up call.
reply