You have a good point, but maybe more will de-Microsoft than would have in the past. This is a more severe outage than Crowdstrike for most businesses. But also, LLMs might make it easier for businesses to identify alternatives and realize the transition.

Betting the electric grid has people around who at least understand how their substation works.

It doesn't matter if large portions of the grid go down at once. See the recent Spanish outage - the coordination of bringing it back on line is an art of its own.

For the curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_start

I would bet my lunch that the failing code is immediately attributable to AI, but the root cause is a failure of hiring, leadership, accountability, QA. If it was bad AI code, it was still deployed by a bad developer. The buck stops with us humans.

The problem is that AI can generate thousands lines of code....but I can read only few hundred a day with full focus.

It is much easier to read the code you wrote.

>The buck stops with us humans.

It should stop at the top of the organisation. If people are getting a directive from on high to go all in on AI then what are they going to do?

I know that we like to pretend otherwise but leadership are humans, too :-p

It could though, right? Like let's assume vouchers lead to much better school outcomes. Those would still have to be funded by taxpayers.

I think Real Time Audio is hard to get right. Creating a Digital Audio Workstatio (DAW) was what inspired the creation of Zig - the creator felt that it was such a difficult problem that current languages weren't sufficient. I bet it will be less trivial for AI to clone Abelton than the Adobe suite.

Yes, it’s pretty unforgiving. Low latency and live performances leave no wiggle room - software must be low latency and highly reliable. You can’t afford to drop one in 10000 buffers.

How low? I don't think the click-to-sound latency is that critical, could easily be 50ms or more. Almost every video game does something like this.

If you're connecting your machine to several physical effect pedals ... Then you probably need latency compensation.

10ms is reasonable. Above 20ms it gets annoying for the drummer or any other percussionist if you use the software in a realtime environment. For example, recording in a studio setting when you want to hear your own track, too, while recording.

It’s really surprisingly unforgiving, even on today’s machines.

I'm not so sure. I've been building a live iPad based mixer for my modular the last couple of weeks. I've been a heavy user of Live and other audio apps for years and it's been pretty trivial to put together. Been running it with tons of simultaneous tracks, effects, and complex DSP with latency compensation interfacing with my 10 in 8 out interface and haven't had a glitch the entire time.

There are many kinds of Real Time Audio.

If you just do "computer music", with no synced live instruments and external synths, it's a much easier problem, 40 ms of latency is perfectly fine, and on modern hardware it's not hard to hit that target.

There are already clones like https://github.com/storytold/soundcraft out there. No idea if they're any good, but they do exist.

I spent some time with Soundcraft. It is no way a clone, or even a blurry reflection of any of the leading DAWs like Ableton, FL Studio, Logic, etc. It has some passing resemblance to Reaper, but Soundcraft isn't even close in usability and cohesiveness.

I have heard people claim that ArtCraft are not using LLMs to generate their apps, but the presentation and code almost seem like someone gave their LLM agent the Reaper manual and asked it to produce a clone.

Their main tagline on the site is also strange "Professional audio recording and mixing, rebuilt in pure Rust." Really, who cares? No one I know in the performance, composition and recording industry cares at all. What they care about is reliability, stability, workflows and support. Yes, and price. But none of the flagship DAWs have onerous pricing and as others have pointed out, FL Studio has been a good investment over the years. If price is a concern, it is hard to beat Reaper in terms of value and functionality.

I am sure people will continue to one-shot or iterate clones of the leading DAWs and some people will try to use them and probably end up wasting their time on their productions when whoever is behind the project moves on. It is extremely hard work supporting any application and the users of MIDI, audio and notation software are extremely demanding.

My career started way back working on apps for companies like Passport, Opcode and some other music startups, and it I had the sufficient time, the last thing I would want to do is just clone Ableton. My hope is that some effort will come along to total re-invent what and how a music creation and production app should be. I often times feel we hit "Peak DAW" over 20 years ago.

Soundcraft isn't it, but check out Morningdaw. The rate at which its evolved suggests it's very much LLM-made.

nonsense. you have to be very careful in designing audio software. the entire soundchain has to compute within the buffer window or you WILL get bad stuttering output. you can choose slow responsivesness or extreme optimization, and for real time performance only optimization works.

Additionally there are lookahead options in some effects that requires some delay, and clock sync for midi devices

This isn't mutual exclusive to my statement, so, please don't be so offensive and call it nonsense.

Not sure it's fair to say they made then unergonomic in some deliberate or neglectful way. Just that Turbo Pascal was a remarkable program.

From the article:

> If there had been a ‘Turbo Pascal for Linux’ in the early 90s, then we might all be running Linux on our desktops today.

The pentesters wouldn't have to actually pwn a laptop, just getting the employee to download and run anything could go in a report without having the file actually be malicious.

Would they have legal right to do that, out of curiosity?

Hired oentest has company permission to do stuff on company property. I do not imagine they have right to do so to personal property.

Absolutely not. There is literally no framework, which would give you the right to exploit an employee’s personal laptop, that’s just cyber crime.

Then that is something the pentesters cannot do, but malicious actors will do.

Game over.

What pentesters can do, should do, and often do is simply start the test from a workstation that is given to them - you assume a successful social engineering attack as the starting point, and test whether your process and technical controls can properly limit the impact of such a compromise without trying to replicate the actual social engineering step and the associated disruption to the targeted employees.

Taking over that first engineer's workstation shouldn't ever have resulted in $6.3B of damages. I would consider it reasonable if those privileges could be abused (by e.g. the same engineer intentionally) to cause $6.3M of damages and the rest would be mitigated or prevented; so for this incident we could say that 0.1% of the impact was caused by the initial compromise of that workstation and 99.9% of the losses were caused by all the other failures - so it's effective for any pentest to focus on the latter part, ignore the social engineering and phishing part (since you can't really eliminate it anyway - unlike many other flaws) and assume initial compromise as a starting point.

Pen testers generally won’t physically assault your employees, bring guns and wave them around or shoot people, or kidnap their family members and torture them until they do what they want. What’s your point? Nothing.

I think my security form said something along the lines of “using personal laptops to access company resources grants implicit permission for my company to audit my laptop.” It goes on to explain that if you don’t agree to it, simply use the company device only.

How could it go straight up and down? As the robot moves around the room, the anchor for the vertical cable would no longer be directly above the robot.

I assumed the 5th cable would be directly connected to the robot, to lower and raise it straight up and down. So, cables from four corners of the room to the center point where the 5th cable is, and the robot hangs off that 5th cable and can raise/lower itself.

We have antitrust laws on the books. They have barely been enforced since Reagan. But that good change if there was political will. How is Nvidia not a monopoly?

Nvidia is certainly not a monopoly in laptops.

The marine corps traffic safety training teaches that many more accidents are avoided by the steering wheel and gas pedal than the brake. At high speeds, the brake can only avoid things many yards away while the steering wheel (and gas in winter for traction) can avoid obstacles just feet away.