Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18855 > unrolled thread

Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11

Contents

  Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-30 17:17 -0400
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-30 19:27 -0400
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-05-01 01:05 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-05-01 07:52 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 08:56 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-01 14:58 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 19:16 -0400
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 01:01 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 22:04 -0400
                    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 04:37 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-02 09:08 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 02:31 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-03 08:14 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-03 19:59 +1000
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 17:54 -0400
                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-03 04:35 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-30 21:19 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 12:06 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-02 01:52 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-05-02 11:02 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-02 20:51 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 07:55 -0400
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans "...winston" <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-05-02 10:50 -0400
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-02 20:46 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-05-01 10:06 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 17:50 -0400
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-01 08:22 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 08:51 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 18:49 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 19:22 -0400
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:58 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2025-05-01 08:16 -0700
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-05-01 07:11 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 09:00 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-01 18:05 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 00:51 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-01 21:51 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-02 04:38 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-02 09:11 -0400
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 12:35 -0400
                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:06 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-03 19:47 -0400
                    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 02:16 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 07:41 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 16:01 -0400
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:27 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-10 04:33 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 02:24 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 00:37 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 04:47 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:57 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-04 20:04 +1000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 08:08 -0400
                            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 20:17 +0000
                              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 18:04 -0400
                                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:38 +0000
                                  Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-05 08:39 -0400
                            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-04 21:25 +0000
                              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-05 06:34 +0000
                                Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-05 20:22 +1000
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:54 +0000
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-05-04 20:08 +1000
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 13:24 -0400
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-05-04 08:49 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-04 07:49 -0400
                        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-04 16:12 -0400
                          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-10 01:03 +0000
                            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-06-10 01:41 -0400
                              Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-06-15 21:05 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-01 13:46 +0000
    Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-02 22:55 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-02 19:46 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-05-02 23:53 -0400
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-03 13:27 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-05-03 10:40 -0400
            Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:33 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-05-03 23:08 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#18997

On Fri, 02 May 2025 11:02:57 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:


> For example, all word processors and accounting software packages are
> usually bundled with a plethora of boilerplate documents to suit a
> variety of purposes.  Do you think the average office worker will create
> a dunning letter from scratch?  That would be highly unlikely.  Rather
> they will select a standard dunning boilerplate and perhaps modify it
> slighly.  Does that seem quiite like current AI?

Remember Mad Libs? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18960

On Fri, 5/2/2025 1:52 AM, ...winston wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> On Wed, 4/30/2025 9:19 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-30 19:27, knuttle wrote:
>>
>>>> That has been obvious since the DOS days
>>>
>>> I don't believe they had the processing power for an AI
>>> to produce code for them. However, if you have any evidence,
>>> I'd love to see it.
>>
>> https://www.wired.com/story/minecraft-ai-code-microsoft/
>>
>>     "Microsoft’s Copilot was made available to a limited number of testers
>>      in June 2021 and is now being used by over 10,000 developers who are
>>      producing, on average, around 35 percent of their code in popular
>>      languages like Python and Java using Copilot, Microsoft says. The
>>      company plans to make Copilot available for anyone to download this summer.
>>      To build something like the Minecraft bot, developers would need to work
>>      with the underlying AI model, Codex.
>>
>>      Both Codex and Copilot have stirred up some anxiety among developers,
>>      who fear they could be automated out of a job. The Minecraft demo
>>      could inspire similar concerns. But Scott says the feedback on Copilot
>>      has been largely positive, suggesting that it simply automates more
>>      tedious coding tasks. “If you talk to a developer who actually uses a
>>      Copilot, they'll say ‘this is such a great tool,’” he says.
>>
>> I guess we'll know, when the first wave of layoffs start :-)
>>
>> But when your rich uncle pays for all the electricity,
>> the balance sheet for this approach does not matter.
>> I drive a Cadillac to the dump... "because the roads are
>> so bad there".
>>
>>     Paul
>>
> Fyi...
>  AI internally was in use in specific areas around 2014 and in development a few years earlier - primarily two platforms - [1]Cortana and [2]Windows(the former based on existing data local and cloud based, the latter a tool to write code for verification of human written or existing code). Additionally AI at the same time had some penetration in speech, gaming, and data(feedback - known and/or reported issues)analysis.
>  - a case could even be made for even earlier use(circa 2009) where machine learning was in use for [3]Windows Live Search based on and from acquisitions that developed tools using semantic/natural language search engines providing target answers to user questions(instead of keyword search). Not too distant from the more common 'Chat-AI' in use today.
> 
> All[1,2,3] had their own internal codenames independent of the respective platform codenames.
> 
> i.e. there's more history to be seen than publicly broadcast or spun with marketing terms.
> 
> It would be a stretch(leap of faith/pipe dream/ignorance) to claim that replacing humans, support, sales, software development with AI code during the DOS days....though that earlier comment did have its humorous benefit.
> 

DirectML/ONNX started about four years ago.

Neural Networks (nn, cnn, dnn) started a long time
ago. But were noteworthy for the difficulty of
translating a "problem", into a solution. One of our
USENETters was an nn developer, and vended his own
product. But he stopped showing up some years ago
(correctly concluding we weren't a market).

The past efforts were nothing like the ones today.
The models were smaller, but they didn't run any faster.

While articles like this, document the front end, the
info on the cobbled-together back ends of these schemes
are quite different. There's a lot of bailing wire and
binder twine back there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortana_%28virtual_assistant%29

The good thing about the gold rush, is it is enough of
a technical achievement, to get people thinking about
how to manage it, how to make law for it. Who knows,
we might be slightly better prepared, when the real
breakthrough comes into being. LLM is not that thing.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18973

Paul wrote:
> On Fri, 5/2/2025 1:52 AM, ...winston wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4/30/2025 9:19 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-30 19:27, knuttle wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That has been obvious since the DOS days
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe they had the processing power for an AI
>>>> to produce code for them. However, if you have any evidence,
>>>> I'd love to see it.
>>>
>>> https://www.wired.com/story/minecraft-ai-code-microsoft/
>>>
>>>      "Microsoft’s Copilot was made available to a limited number of testers
>>>       in June 2021 and is now being used by over 10,000 developers who are
>>>       producing, on average, around 35 percent of their code in popular
>>>       languages like Python and Java using Copilot, Microsoft says. The
>>>       company plans to make Copilot available for anyone to download this summer.
>>>       To build something like the Minecraft bot, developers would need to work
>>>       with the underlying AI model, Codex.
>>>
>>>       Both Codex and Copilot have stirred up some anxiety among developers,
>>>       who fear they could be automated out of a job. The Minecraft demo
>>>       could inspire similar concerns. But Scott says the feedback on Copilot
>>>       has been largely positive, suggesting that it simply automates more
>>>       tedious coding tasks. “If you talk to a developer who actually uses a
>>>       Copilot, they'll say ‘this is such a great tool,’” he says.
>>>
>>> I guess we'll know, when the first wave of layoffs start :-)
>>>
>>> But when your rich uncle pays for all the electricity,
>>> the balance sheet for this approach does not matter.
>>> I drive a Cadillac to the dump... "because the roads are
>>> so bad there".
>>>
>>>      Paul
>>>
>> Fyi...
>>   AI internally was in use in specific areas around 2014 and in development a few years earlier - primarily two platforms - [1]Cortana and [2]Windows(the former based on existing data local and cloud based, the latter a tool to write code for verification of human written or existing code). Additionally AI at the same time had some penetration in speech, gaming, and data(feedback - known and/or reported issues)analysis.
>>   - a case could even be made for even earlier use(circa 2009) where machine learning was in use for [3]Windows Live Search based on and from acquisitions that developed tools using semantic/natural language search engines providing target answers to user questions(instead of keyword search). Not too distant from the more common 'Chat-AI' in use today.
>>
>> All[1,2,3] had their own internal codenames independent of the respective platform codenames.
>>
>> i.e. there's more history to be seen than publicly broadcast or spun with marketing terms.
>>
>> It would be a stretch(leap of faith/pipe dream/ignorance) to claim that replacing humans, support, sales, software development with AI code during the DOS days....though that earlier comment did have its humorous benefit.
>>
> 
> DirectML/ONNX started about four years ago.
> 
> Neural Networks (nn, cnn, dnn) started a long time
> ago. But were noteworthy for the difficulty of
> translating a "problem", into a solution. One of our
> USENETters was an nn developer, and vended his own
> product. But he stopped showing up some years ago
> (correctly concluding we weren't a market).
> 
> The past efforts were nothing like the ones today.
> The models were smaller, but they didn't run any faster.
> 
> While articles like this, document the front end, the
> info on the cobbled-together back ends of these schemes
> are quite different. There's a lot of bailing wire and
> binder twine back there.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortana_%28virtual_assistant%29
> 
> The good thing about the gold rush, is it is enough of
> a technical achievement, to get people thinking about
> how to manage it, how to make law for it. Who knows,
> we might be slightly better prepared, when the real
> breakthrough comes into being. LLM is not that thing.
> 
>     Paul
> 
> 

:)
Quite a bit of everything ever written has/had a lot of bailing wire and 
binder twine in the creation process
  - Code(os), books(novels[the most notable - any 'Bible'), laws, 
statutes, tariffs<g>,....

-- 
...w¡ñ§±¤ñ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18995

On Fri, 2 May 2025 07:55:05 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Neural Networks (nn, cnn, dnn) started a long time ago. But were
> noteworthy for the difficulty of translating a "problem", into a
> solution. One of our USENETters was an nn developer, and vended his own
> product. But he stopped showing up some years ago (correctly concluding
> we weren't a market).

There is a phenomenon referred to as 'AI winter' going back to when Minsky 
and Papert pointed out a perceptron couldn't handle XOR. I played with 
neural nets in the '80s when back propagation improved them. However they 
were overhyped and couldn't deliver given the hardware of the day. 'Expert 
systems' was the next sweetheart of the press. nn's got such a bad rep it 
was sort of career suicide to mention them. When they were reborn 'machine 
learning' was a name to disguise them.

Anyway over the years AI blooms in the spring with extravagant promises, 
stumbles in the summer, and then goes into a long, hard winter of 
hibernation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18880

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:27:20 -0400, knuttle wrote:

>

> That has been obvious since the DOS days
>

This is true.

Anyone who has ever "programmed" with Visual Studio knows that automated
code generation is present throughout.

Example.  Invoke a window or other graphical object and a huge mass of code
is automatically dropped in place.

Another example.  Write some short statments within ASP.NET and a huge
mass of javascript appears from nowhere.

In fact, most "programming" of any kind is simply stringing together standard,
pre-built modules to achieve an overall goal.

AI can easily do the same thing.

But TRUE PROGRAMMING is not blind coding but rather creative problem solving
and that will never be replaced by AI.




-- 
Hail Linux!  Hail FOSS!  Hail Stallman!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18917

On Thu, 5/1/2025 6:06 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:27:20 -0400, knuttle wrote:
> 
>>
> 
>> That has been obvious since the DOS days
>>
> 
> This is true.
> 
> Anyone who has ever "programmed" with Visual Studio knows that automated
> code generation is present throughout.
> 
> Example.  Invoke a window or other graphical object and a huge mass of code
> is automatically dropped in place.
> 
> Another example.  Write some short statments within ASP.NET and a huge
> mass of javascript appears from nowhere.
> 
> In fact, most "programming" of any kind is simply stringing together standard,
> pre-built modules to achieve an overall goal.
> 
> AI can easily do the same thing.

Actually, it can't. It can do an approximation.

The amount of data used for training, is much much larger
than the size of the model file storage. There isn't room to
store verbatim copies of anything in there. But it is OK for the
AI to spot trends or in a sense, contain a precis of what goes on
within that preamble code.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network_%28machine_learning%29

A long time ago, there were complaints from outside programmers,
about the amount of code required to make a window appear on the screen.
These were programmers who were prolific individuals, they
wrote code like Steven King writes novels. It would take on
the order of "12 pages of code", to open a window. That was
the exaggeration of the difficulty of it.

The inclusion of template code in Visual Studio, is an attempt to
answer that complaint. It does not particularly reduce the code to
nothing, but it does put a copy of it, plus the prototype event handler
loop, into your source. And that's a good thing, for the average
copy/paste programmer (that's me). I think I have one HelloWorld
version here, that consists of nothing more than that template code :-)

It's no problem for the AI to write an equivalent module
(subject to model token limits). The AI training process
will have captured the idea than an HWND is being opened,
and that there is an event loop to make the "monitoring"
facility in Windows happen. If a process does not "eat"
a test event sent to it, then the Windows "busy cursor"
appears which tells you the program is "un-responsive".
As long as the event loop eats events, it is assumed
the program is running OK. Programs quite frequently
appear unresponsive, because the event loop is not
in a run-able state (blocked by some internal activity).
Poorly written programs will show the busy cursor, when
it should not be shown.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18870

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:17:49 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively
> destroying jobs for human beings.

Apparently Google is doing much the same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18890

On 2025-05-01 04:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:17:49 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively
>> destroying jobs for human beings.
> 
> Apparently Google is doing much the same.

That might explain why the guy I went to high school with, who was 
Director of Engineering at Microsoft and then Google, now works for some 
AI company called Snowflake.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18920

On Thu, 5/1/2025 8:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-05-01 04:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:17:49 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively
>>> destroying jobs for human beings.
>>
>> Apparently Google is doing much the same.
> 
> That might explain why the guy I went to high school with, who was 
> Director of Engineering at Microsoft and then Google, now works 
> for some AI company called Snowflake.

Only the persons using those tools, can tell us whether
they're good enough to replace someone. I'm not convinced
the behavior of the agents is good enough at the moment,
to remove anyone.

People are constantly removed in big companies. There
can be a 5%-10% turnover rate, just based on performance.
That's going to continue.

Technical jobs require synthesis and analysis. The lower
levels of the synthesis are being nibbled at. There's
no reason to panic quite yet.

One problem at Microsoft, is working in a department
with a rather large head count, and not being given work
which is key to the success of your department. There
are likely a large number of people who could be
terminated at a moments notice. All they need,
is an excuse to belt tighten. Is there such a
reason to belt tighten ? if so, THEN I would be worried.

We had people like that at my work. Given jobs that
did not contribute a lot. No opportunity to look like
stars. They still had jobs though. But it's rather
thin ice to be standing on, and there were few
opportunities to move in the company, to a star-maker
position. This is just the nature of the industry.
But if it is deemed an axe must fall, it cuts deep.
That's how Intel can lay of 20,000 people. A lot
of people, standing on thin ice for a long time. And
no place to run. The lower level management knew
exactly what they were doing.

General Motors, at one point, knew it wanted to
hire 10,000 people, because of the "software content
of cars". When you announce you are hiring in such
numbers, what does that tell you about the star-maker
nature of the positions ? That's 100 "good" jobs, and
9900 people standing on thin ice. When the axe falls
later, it will cut deep.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18924

On 2025-05-01 18:49, Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 5/1/2025 8:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-05-01 04:22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:17:49 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively
>>>> destroying jobs for human beings.
>>>
>>> Apparently Google is doing much the same.
>>
>> That might explain why the guy I went to high school with, who was
>> Director of Engineering at Microsoft and then Google, now works
>> for some AI company called Snowflake.
> 
> Only the persons using those tools, can tell us whether
> they're good enough to replace someone. I'm not convinced
> the behavior of the agents is good enough at the moment,
> to remove anyone.
> 
> People are constantly removed in big companies. There
> can be a 5%-10% turnover rate, just based on performance.
> That's going to continue.
> 
> Technical jobs require synthesis and analysis. The lower
> levels of the synthesis are being nibbled at. There's
> no reason to panic quite yet.
> 
> One problem at Microsoft, is working in a department
> with a rather large head count, and not being given work
> which is key to the success of your department. There
> are likely a large number of people who could be
> terminated at a moments notice. All they need,
> is an excuse to belt tighten. Is there such a
> reason to belt tighten ? if so, THEN I would be worried.
> 
> We had people like that at my work. Given jobs that
> did not contribute a lot. No opportunity to look like
> stars. They still had jobs though. But it's rather
> thin ice to be standing on, and there were few
> opportunities to move in the company, to a star-maker
> position. This is just the nature of the industry.
> But if it is deemed an axe must fall, it cuts deep.
> That's how Intel can lay of 20,000 people. A lot
> of people, standing on thin ice for a long time. And
> no place to run. The lower level management knew
> exactly what they were doing.
> 
> General Motors, at one point, knew it wanted to
> hire 10,000 people, because of the "software content
> of cars". When you announce you are hiring in such
> numbers, what does that tell you about the star-maker
> nature of the positions ? That's 100 "good" jobs, and
> 9900 people standing on thin ice. When the axe falls
> later, it will cut deep.
> 
>     Paul

Good analysis. To be honest, I never wanted to get into tech 
specifically because I felt I would constantly be a part of that 9,900. 
I'm sure I would have turned into a competent employee in whichever 
position I would study for, but I'm not convinced that I would have 
excelled to a point where my job would be secure.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18927

On Thu, 1 May 2025 18:49:40 -0400, Paul wrote:

> We had people like that at my work. Given jobs that did not contribute a
> lot. No opportunity to look like stars. They still had jobs though. But
> it's rather thin ice to be standing on, and there were few opportunities
> to move in the company, to a star-maker position. This is just the
> nature of the industry.

IBM was the ur-Corporation built on this model. A labyrinthine 
bureaucracy, built around inflexible, unwieldy procedures -- even its 
products reflected that philosophy. All except one particular product 
family we all know about. But that deviation from corporate tradition was 
seen as a “mistake” that the company vowed never to repeat.

The company has been on the decline since the 1990s (that famous “mistake” 
being a major contributory factor, of course). Red Hat, on the other hand, 
was a startup which has fostered several people who would fit your phrase 
of “looking like stars”. IBM has acquired Red Hat, and it is probably now 
the only profitable division the company has. It will remain so as long as 
IBM top management keep their hands-off approach to their subsidiary, 
letting it continue to operate as an independent business. Because as soon 
as they infect it with their usual corporate culture, they will kill it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18898

My response to this is "So?"

Not all 'bots' are silicon based life forms.
-- 
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel:  Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm) 
     Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18888

CrudeSausage wrote:

>Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively 
>destroying jobs for human beings.
>
><https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2025/04/30/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-reveals-30-of-companys-code-written-by-ai/>
>
>In a discussion at Meta’s inaugural “LlamaCon” AI developer event, 
>Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg shed light on 
>the growing role of artificial intelligence in software development 
>within their respective companies. Nadella claims that up to 30 percent 
>of Microsoft’s code is now written by AI.
>
>CNBC reports that during a conversation at Meta’s LlamaCon AI developer 
>event in Silicon Valley Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that as 
>much as 30 percent of the company’s code is now written by AI. This 
>startling revelation highlights the rapid integration of AI in the 
>software development process.

Thank God for AI!  An improved Farcebook experience is a genuine asset
and a huge improvement to our lives and to our global competitiveness!

Meanwhile, China applies AI and robotics to increase manufacturing
efficiencies, out-pacing us *ever more*.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18892

On 2025-05-01 08:11, chrisv wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively
>> destroying jobs for human beings.
>>
>> <https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2025/04/30/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-reveals-30-of-companys-code-written-by-ai/>
>>
>> In a discussion at Meta’s inaugural “LlamaCon” AI developer event,
>> Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg shed light on
>> the growing role of artificial intelligence in software development
>> within their respective companies. Nadella claims that up to 30 percent
>> of Microsoft’s code is now written by AI.
>>
>> CNBC reports that during a conversation at Meta’s LlamaCon AI developer
>> event in Silicon Valley Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that as
>> much as 30 percent of the company’s code is now written by AI. This
>> startling revelation highlights the rapid integration of AI in the
>> software development process.
> 
> Thank God for AI!  An improved Farcebook experience is a genuine asset
> and a huge improvement to our lives and to our global competitiveness!
> 
> Meanwhile, China applies AI and robotics to increase manufacturing
> efficiencies, out-pacing us *ever more*.

Is that a fact or simply propaganda the Chinese have broadcast to give 
everyone that impression?

Either way, it seems our new Prime Minister is intent on aligning Canada 
with the interests of China despite the fact that the United States is 
directly to the south of us. I hope it's not true, but it wouldn't shock 
me in the least.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18918

On Thu, 5/1/2025 9:00 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-05-01 08:11, chrisv wrote:
>> CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Another reason not to use Microsoft's software: they are actively
>>> destroying jobs for human beings.
>>>
>>> <https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2025/04/30/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-reveals-30-of-companys-code-written-by-ai/>
>>>
>>> In a discussion at Meta’s inaugural “LlamaCon” AI developer event,
>>> Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg shed light on
>>> the growing role of artificial intelligence in software development
>>> within their respective companies. Nadella claims that up to 30 percent
>>> of Microsoft’s code is now written by AI.
>>>
>>> CNBC reports that during a conversation at Meta’s LlamaCon AI developer
>>> event in Silicon Valley Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that as
>>> much as 30 percent of the company’s code is now written by AI. This
>>> startling revelation highlights the rapid integration of AI in the
>>> software development process.
>>
>> Thank God for AI!  An improved Farcebook experience is a genuine asset
>> and a huge improvement to our lives and to our global competitiveness!
>>
>> Meanwhile, China applies AI and robotics to increase manufacturing
>> efficiencies, out-pacing us *ever more*.
> 
> Is that a fact or simply propaganda the Chinese have broadcast to give everyone that impression?
> 
> Either way, it seems our new Prime Minister is intent on aligning Canada with the 
> interests of China despite the fact that the United States is directly to the
> south of us. I hope it's not true, but it wouldn't shock me in the least.

In case you hadn't noticed, there aren't a lot of "interpretational choices"
involved here. People can say things that aren't true -- that's
what social media is for.

If we can't trade with the USA, we will trade with anyone else.
That should be pretty clear and logical, for anyone with
a working brain pan. Do the Brazilians need pine 2"x4" ?
IDK. I suspect someone needs our 2x4s. Now, we must find
that person.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18926

On Thu, 1 May 2025 09:00:07 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Either way, it seems our new Prime Minister is intent on aligning Canada
> with the interests of China despite the fact that the United States is
> directly to the south of us.

As opposed to the other guy, who was intent on sucking up to a foreign 
despot who was wanting to annex his land and destroy his country’s 
identity? Did you really think he deserved anything less than to lose, not 
only the election, but his electorate seat as well, after promoting such a 
boneheaded policy as that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18929

On 2025-05-01 20:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 09:00:07 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Either way, it seems our new Prime Minister is intent on aligning Canada
>> with the interests of China despite the fact that the United States is
>> directly to the south of us.
> 
> As opposed to the other guy, who was intent on sucking up to a foreign
> despot who was wanting to annex his land and destroy his country’s
> identity?

Apparently, you don't follow the news. Trump didn't like Poilièvre 
because he was combative. He actually preferred the ecological tyrant 
that got elected on Monday.

> Did you really think he deserved anything less than to lose, not
> only the election, but his electorate seat as well, after promoting such a
> boneheaded policy as that?

Except that no such policy was promoted.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18936

On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:51:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Trump didn't like Poilièvre because he was combative. He actually
> preferred the ecological tyrant that got elected on Monday.

Why would you be unhappy about that, if your idol actually prefers this 
guy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18967

On 2025-05-02 00:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:51:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> Trump didn't like Poilièvre because he was combative. He actually
>> preferred the ecological tyrant that got elected on Monday.
> 
> Why would you be unhappy about that, if your idol actually prefers this
> guy?

I like Trump and when his tariffs were announced, rather than cry like 
other Canadians, I saw it as a good thing because it was going to force 
our government to look for new customers and develop a sense of 
nationalism where Canadian products were prioritized over American one. 
That's largely what happened. It's nice that Carney and Trump will get 
along but the problem is that Carney himself will change Canada for the 
worse by aggressively moving away from a resource we have in large 
supply and try to create an "energy superpower" through renewables, 
something that is impossible and drives most nations to ruin. He is also 
a huge fan of carbon taxes which do nothing other than make life more 
expensive for the citizens themselves. He believes in censorship and has 
already shown that he is willing to use police to silence independent 
journalists.

There is more but I think that is more than enough.

-- 
God be with you,

CrudeSausage
KDE & LibreOffice supporter
John 14:6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#18981

On Fri, 5/2/2025 9:11 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-05-02 00:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:51:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Trump didn't like Poilièvre because he was combative. He actually
>>> preferred the ecological tyrant that got elected on Monday.
>>
>> Why would you be unhappy about that, if your idol actually prefers this
>> guy?
> 
> I like Trump and when his tariffs were announced, rather than cry like other Canadians, I saw it as a good thing because it was going to force our government to look for new customers and develop a sense of nationalism where Canadian products were prioritized over American one. That's largely what happened. It's nice that Carney and Trump will get along but the problem is that Carney himself will change Canada for the worse by aggressively moving away from a resource we have in large supply and try to create an "energy superpower" through renewables, something that is impossible and drives most nations to ruin. He is also a huge fan of carbon taxes which do nothing other than make life more expensive for the citizens themselves. He believes in censorship and has already shown that he is willing to use police to silence independent journalists.
> 
> There is more but I think that is more than enough.
> 

I don't think we know anything about Carney.

Only time will tell, one way or another.

   Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11

csiph-web