If you are morally obligated to use your own resources if you have them, then you're stratifying society. The financially comfortable can never ride a bus. The rich cannot drive themselves. Nobody can ever learn what those less fortunate are like, and must necessarily look down upon them and use their imagination to figure out what "those people" care about and need.
So that's not a great outcome either.
(I don't exactly disagree with you either. Accepting a scarce resource from someone when you possess significantly more? That rubs me the wrong way too. Get their mailing address and pay it back later, in spades, if it deprived them of something!)
The title bothers me. It suggests to me that "AI" is a single thing. If two guys are tested and turn out to be not that great at reading MRI images, should the headline be "Male radiologists miss nearly one-third of breast cancers"?
If it said "AI something", I'd be fine with it. It's a statement about that something, not about AI in general. Use it as an adjective (short for "AI-using" I guess?), not a noun.
The amount doesn't really matter. What matters is the variance. There could be only 3 radiologists in the world that use different practices with 1% 10% and 50% error rates. It would be misleading to say "Radiologists miss 50% of diagnoses" based on one practice.
The assumption when gathering these statistics is that more or less you can average these out, but with AI you might have a model with literal 100% error rate or a model with a much lower error rate, and that changes a lot depending on the AI method its using.
(I haven't used AI much, so feel free to ignore me.)
This is one thing I've tried using it for, and I've found this to be very, very tricky. At first glance, it seems unbelievably good. The comments read well, they seem correct, and they even include some very non-obvious information.
But almost every time I sit down and really think about a comment that includes any of that more complex analysis, I end up discarding it. Often, it's right but it's missing the point, in a way that will lead a reader astray. It's subtle and I really ought to dig up an example, but I'm unable to find the session I'm thinking about.
This was with ChatGPT 5, fwiw. It's totally possible that other models do better. (Or even newer ChatGPT; this was very early on in 5.)
Code review is similar. It comes up with clever chains of reasoning for why something is problematic, and initially convinces me. But when I dig into it, the review comment ends up not applying.
It could also be the specific codebase I'm using this on? (It's the SpiderMonkey source.)
I've had some encounters with inaccuracies but my general experience has been amazing. I've cloned completely foreign git repos, cranked up the tool and just said "I'm having this bug, give me an overview of how X and Y work" and it will create great high level conceptual outlines that mean I can drive straight in where without it I would spend a long time just flailing around.
I do think an essential skill is developing just the right level of scepticism. It's not really different to working with a human though. If a human tells me X or Y works in a certain way i always allow a small margin of possibility they are wrong.
They do have a knack for missing the point. Even Opus 4.5 can laser focus on the wrong thing. It does take skill and experience to interpret them correctly and set them straight when they go wrong.
Even so, for understanding what happens in a big chunk of code, they're pretty great.
> you want to keep users hooked to extract some value from them
Ironically, that's what I initially liked about the daily puzzles like Wordle: they forcibly prevented you from sinking too much time into them. It was sort of like, "hey here's something cool, and I'm going to make sure it's a positive addition to your life by preventing you from succumbing to your own addictive impulses". You could call that condescending or infantilizing, but to me it's just part of the look and feel of a thing. Especially if the author isn't charging money, they get to use whatever tools are at their disposal to craft the users' experience of it. Wordle Over And Over Again is a different game than Wordle Once Daily. (And WOAOA done properly would probably have a progression of difficulties, or themes, or something, whereas WOD makes more sense with pure randomness.)
(Cost unknown, but it's part of a $35K motorcycle, which somewhat limits the possible range unless there's VC chum involved.)
[x] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[x] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
(Motorcycle, again.)
[x] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[x] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
(400 Wh/kg is better than Li-Ion)
[x] it has too short of a lifetime.
[x] its charge rate is too slow.
[x] its materials are too toxic.
[x] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[x] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[x] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[x] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
(not directly addressed, but in combination with the rest, I'll give this a pass.)
[?] your claims are lies.
It kinda looks like they read through this exact list and addressed every item but the last. Where by "addressed", I mean simply that: they made a claim regarding the item.
I am using "x" to mean that the line item is addressed by the article. Sorry, I guess that's backwards from the original intent of the checklist.
I am saying that the article addresses every reason for doubt that the checklist raises (save for the last, which it can't). Whether the technology actually addresses that shortcoming is another question, but the article does claim to have solved every single one of those common drawbacks.
As for the item about li-ion advances, I think the claimed capabilities are well beyond what li-ion could reasonably be expected to reach in the short remaining timeframe claimed.
tl;dr: the checklist is a cynical but normally accurate way of spotting fatal flaws in newly announced battery technology. Based on the announcement, this technology suffers from none of the flaws listed therein.
I find this whole "I gotta be able to turn off AI!" thing to be silly, personally. Do you also want to be able to turn off anything that uses binary search? Perhaps anything written in C++? Ooh, maybe it's nested for loops! Those kinda suck, give me an option to turn those off!
My indelicately expressed point is that the algorithm or processing model is not something anyone should care about. What matters? Things like: is my data sent off my device? Is there any way someone else can see what I'm doing or the data I'm generating? Am I burning large amounts of electricity? But none of those are "is it AI or not?"
Firefox already has a good story about what is processed locally vs being sent to a server, and gives you visibility and control over that. Why aren't the complaints about "cloud AI", at least? Why is it always "don't force-feed me AI in any form!"?
(To be clear, I'm no cheerleader for AI in the browser, and it bothers me when AI is injected as a solution without bothering to find a problem worth solving. But I'm not going to argue against on-device AI that does serve a useful purpose; I think that's great and we should find as many such opportunities as possible.)
So that's not a great outcome either.
(I don't exactly disagree with you either. Accepting a scarce resource from someone when you possess significantly more? That rubs me the wrong way too. Get their mailing address and pay it back later, in spades, if it deprived them of something!)
reply