“I spend 8 hours per week trying to keep up to date, it’s overwhelming!” “Integrating new libraries is difficult. They’re either poorly maintained or updated in ways that break compatibility.” “I want to be able to experiment quickly, without r

ActuGaming.net L’impressionnant Crimson Desert pourrait sortir durant le mois de novembre après une très longue attente Crimson Desert est tellement ambitieux qu’il a pu paraître comme un projet trop complexe pour […] L'article L&r

Other countries may benefit. Science will suffer

Though artificial intelligence is taking the world by storm, it's still pretty bad at tasks demanding a high-degree of flexibility, like writing computer code.Earlier this year, ChatGPT maker OpenAI published a white paper taking AI to task for its lackluster performance in a coding scrum. Among other things, it found that even the most advanced AI models are "still unable to solve the majority" of coding tasks.Later in an interview, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that these models are "on the precipice of being incredible at software engineering," adding that "software engineering by the end of 2025 looks very different than software engineering at the beginning of 2025."It was a bold prediction without much substance to back it — if anything, generative AI like the kind Altman pedals has only gotten worse at coding as hallucination rates increase with each new iteration.Now we know what he was playing at.Early on Friday, OpenAI revealed a preview of Codex, the company's stab at a specialty coding "agent" — a fluffy industry term that seems to change definitions depending on which company is trying to sell one to you."Codex is a cloud-based software engineering agent that can work on many tasks in parallel," the company's research preview reads.The new tool will seemingly help software engineers by writing new features, debugging existing code, and answering questions about source code, among other tasks.Contrary to ChatGPT's everything-in-a-box model, which is geared toward the mass market, Codex has been trained to "generate code that closely mirrors human style and PR preferences." That's a charitable way to say "steal other people's code" — an AI training tactic OpenAI has been sued for in the not-too-distant past, when it helped Microsoft's Copilot go to town on open-source and copyrighted code shared on GitHub.Thanks in large part to a technicality, OpenAI, GitHub, and Microsoft came out of that legal scuffle pretty much unscathed, giving OpenAI some convenient legal armor should it choose to go it alone with its own in-house model trained on GitHub code.In the Codex release, OpenAI claims its coding agent operates entirely in the cloud, cut off from the internet, meaning it can't scour the web for data like ChatGPT. Instead, OpenAI "limits the agent’s interaction solely to the code explicitly provided via GitHub repositories and pre-installed dependencies configured by the user via a setup script."Still, the data used to train Codex had to come from somewhere, and judging by the rash of copyright lawsuits that seem to plague the AI industry, it's only a matter of time before we find out where.More on OpenAI: ChatGPT Users Are Developing Bizarre DelusionsShare This Article

The Ford Pinto. New Coke. Google Glass. History is littered with products whose fatal flaw— whether failures of safety, privacy, performance, or plain old desirability—repelled consumers and inflicted reputational damage to the companies bringing them to market.  It’s easy to imagine the difference if these problems had been detected early on. And too often, businesses neglect the chance to work with nonprofits, social enterprises, and other public interest groups to make product improvements after they enter the marketplace or, more ideally, “upstream,” before their products have entered the crucible of the customer.  For companies and consumer groups alike, this is a major missed opportunity. In an increasingly competitive marketplace, partnering with public interest groups to bake an authentic pro-consumer perspective into elements like design, safety, sustainability, and functionality can provide a coveted advantage. It gives a product the chance to stand out from the crowd, already destined for glowing reviews because problems were nipped in the bud thanks to guidance and data from those focused on consumers’ interests. And for the nonprofits, working proactively with businesses to help ensure that products reflect consumers’ values from the outset means a better, safer marketplace for everyone.  Zoom, in a nutshell  We’ve already seen the difference working together can make, especially if it’s early in a product’s introduction to consumers. Just look at Zoom. The videoconferencing platform, while launched as a tool for businesses, had not been introduced to a wide consumer audience before the COVID-19 pandemic made its services a global necessity. In early 2020—as Zoom was poised to explode from 10 million monthly users to more than 300 million by April—Consumer Reports’ (CR) testing experts went under the hood in our digital lab to assess it from a consumer well-being perspective.  CR uncovered serious flaws. These included a protocol allowing the company to collect users’ videos, call transcripts, and chats and use them for targeted advertising, as well as features that allowed hosts to record meetings in secret and alert them when a participant clicked away from the screen. At the precipice of a moment when elementary school classrooms to therapy sessions would be conducted over Zoom, there’s no telling what the fallout might have been—for the company or its customers—had these problems persisted.  But CR reached out to the business—and the business reached back. Within days, Zoom had worked with CR to solve a wide array of problems, helping strengthen its case as a lifeline for users all over the world.  Partnerships require new ways of thinking   Now imagine what could be possible if such a partnership began even earlier in the process. This is the relationship CR has worked to build with businesses, providing companies our testing expertise and data about consumers’ needs and desires. Our advisory services have led to us providing feedback on prototypes, and with feedback implemented earlier in the product development lifecycle, we’ve seen immediate impact for consumers: improved comfort of leg support in vehicles; privacy policy changes for electronics; reduced fees for a basic checking account; an improved washing machine drying algorithm for one brand; improved safety of active driver assistance systems; and strengthened digital payments app scam warnings before users finalize transactions. These partnerships have proven productive, but they remain the exception to the rule.  Building more of those cooperative, upstream relationships will require new thinking on both sides. Advocacy organizations must adopt an entrepreneurial spirit, leveraging their insights and expertise as a collaborator to companies they’re more accustomed to critiquing. Businesses must embrace these relationships as a central part of their research and development process, understanding that embedding pro-consumer values gives them a real edge in today’s hyper-social marketplace.  This cooperation is especially important in the modern digital era, when many consumers are making choices that reflect their principles and where products and services are growing increasingly complex. As the rise of AI-fueled products brings a new wave of threats and vulnerabilities in its wake, it is critical that businesses and public interest groups make an effort to forge strong relationships.  By coming together early and often around their common interest—the consumer—they can improve products, craft strong industry standards, burnish the reputation of companies that act responsibly, and help maintain the health and integrity of the marketplace.  Phil Radford is president and CEO of Consumer Reports.