Yes, I'm sure you could hack together some bullshit questions to demonstrate whatever you want. Is there a specific reason that the reasonably straightforward methodology they did use is somehow flawed?
A bucket of 30 questions is not a statistically significant sample size which we can use to support the hypothesis which goes to say that all AI assistants they tested are 45% of the time wrong. That's not how science works.
Neither is my bucket of 30 questions statistcally significant but it goes to say that I can disprove their hypothesis just by giving them my sample.
I think that the report is being disingenious and I don't understand for what reasons. it's funny that they say "misrepresent" when that's exactly what they are doing.
I don't follow your reasoning re. statistical sample size. The topic article claims that 45% of the answers were wrong. If - with a vastly greater sample size - the answers were "only" (let's say) 20% wrong, that's still a complete failure, so is 5%. The article is not about hypothesis, it's about news reporting.
“ARM architecture” in the sense it’s used by Apple is just an ISA. The ISA obviously has some effect on power consumption (e.g. avoiding complex CISC decode). But in reality, by far the most significant driver of CPU efficiency and power consumption is process node.
Isn't a larger issue the number of immigrants who are NOT contributing to the economy, living at taxpayers' expense, with many immigrants engaging in crime?
No, this is not supported by any real evidence.
They could create a polite British form of ICE
I can think of few things the UK should do less than ape American attitudes to immigration currently.
That's not "letting in poor people" as you framed it. It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Lots of that is mainly based on classism (against people from middle class), racism (against white people).
This obviously doesn’t follow, and you should feel a decent amount of embarrassment for ignoring the fact that exam grades don’t correlate with “dumbness” or lack thereof.
It should be trivially obvious that a student who is perhaps from a less well-off background, attending state school and achieving decent grades, can be equally as talented and deserving of a top-tier education as a better-off, privately-educated student.
Access programs go some way towards trying to tackle snowballing generational inequality - which essentially results in a bias away from merit, and towards those able to afford private education.
If you want to argue against that, then fine - but at least don’t start with such faulty assumptions.
Of course it is, because that would be an aggressively stupid thing to do. Like boycotting syntax highlighting, spellckecking, VCS integration or a dozen other features that are th whole pint of IDEs.
If you don’t want to use LLM coding assistants – or if you can’t, or it’s not a technology suitable for your work – nobody cares. It’s totally fine. You don’t need to get performatively enraged about it.
…while being hundreds of times bigger and also not offering the scope to implement hardware hacks (e.g. interfacing through GPIO/I2C/SPI/Serial without additions that cost more than the entire Pi).
Yes - obviously you can use an old PC for many different PoCs and prototypes. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of those you can’t.
Nearly every "old PC" does offer built-in easily accessible I2C - as "DDC channel" of a monitor plug - VGA, DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort - all have it. Linux exposes those as regular /dev/i2c-*, so any I2C software that works on a RPi or other Linux SBC, will run with those too:
reply