The answer is probably yes, but in the example given, the running AI model would hopefully be hosted in a very secure data center, far from the self driving car itself. In that case, it would be far simpler for the machine to finish the taxi ride than try to find some rube goldberg-eque method of destroying the data center.
It does pose a bigger problem if the task is long term and open ended and the agent is provided access to substantial amounts of resources. But even in the worst case scenario, the destruction of a data center is hardly the end of the world.
They probably should increase the levies. On the other hand, the province does get $20 billion+ in direct oil revenue per year (royalties), so it's not like oil companies are just straight up robbing us.
Except that revenue doesn't go towards well cleanup. Not really.
Also it goes up and down drastically. After Trump is finished making a mess in Hormuz, the number will go down again, and Alberta finance ministers will go back to ranting about reigning in excessive spending.
> Except that revenue doesn't go towards well cleanup
Well it's a hard problem because companies that are still in business clean up their own wells. Only bankrupt companies leave orphan wells. So guesstimating the costs is difficult. Yes there should be more planning perhaps, but if it does have to come out of general revenue it's still a net win.
I mean you're kinda leaving out the part where companies deliberately transfer assets then go out of business to avoid cleaning up their wells. That's often how they've become orphaned.
Conventional oil is legacy at this point in Alberta though -- the broader concern is how much we can expect oil sands facilities to be properly decommissioned and closed up once it becomes uneconomical to sell the stuff in 30-40 years. That has a rather more concerning footprint.
The promise could be re-interpreted in some funny ways. For example, Count Binface didn't specify when nationalizing Adele would occur.
They could create another[0] special case in UK copyright law with a minor twist: Instead of eventually entering the public domain, the copyright of Adele's works would transfer to the UK government which would donate any proceeds to a charity that builds affordable homes.
I'd phrase it differently, C++ was a set of power-to-performance trade-offs that were optimal in the 1990s.
Time has moved on.
More importantly, a typical 1990s C++ dev was likely someone who learned assembly, then C or C++. Meaning they already knew how to control hardware / memory allocation, and C++ was just a new set of abstraction tools. It was a step forward for them.
To modern devs, C++ is a step backwards. And a tough one at that.
Actually, C++ was rather poor in the 1990s if you ask me (albeit still very usable). Time has moved on - but so has the language. Its implementation tradeoffs were much better IMNSHO after 2011; but it wasn't there yet. And it still isn't! It has a lot of warts that have to stay for backwards compatibility (which is a design goal); and then, it has annoyances I can't believe are not yet addressed (like - where is my 'restrict' keyword, damn it?!)
Anyway, your view of the 1990s devs is incorrect. Almost no programmers who took up C++ learned assembly first (and few ever learned assembly). I believe most of them learned Pascal, or C, or scripting languages like Perl or Tcl or Unix shell scripts. Some may have learned Lisp or some ML variant as their first language, or Fortran 90. They didn't take a step back, they switched to a different set of language design goals and tradeoffs, and found it, well, serviceable.
It is indeed a bit peculiar that the language has had this much staying power. For C, it's much more understandable - because C is such a small and simple language (and one which, as you suggested, often feels like a bunch of syntactic sugar over PDP-7 assembly). But C++ is big, and has its baggage and warts and flaws. I think it's probably because it's been able to adapt and stretch just enough under the influence of trends in programming languages, for people not to ditch it for something new. Maybe Rust will change that; but - C++ might very well "eat its lunch".
> "because C is such a small and simple language (and one which, as you suggested, often feels like a bunch of syntactic sugar over PDP-7 assembly)."
I didn't describe such qualities of C in my previous post. At all.
And to be clear, I didn't mean "devs who learned how to program in the 1990s". I meant "devs who were active in the 1990s", which would have mostly been devs who came up in the 1970s and 1980s (where learning BASIC, then assembly was common).
I also made no claim about first languages in my previous statement. I only said there was a likely progression from assembly to C or C++ (for a C++ dev).
My point was, the talent pool in the 1990s would be able to handle the downsides of C++, and the upsides would have been a bonus. Whereas modern devs aren't used to the downsides, thus C++ is a step back for them.
What I should have added is that for devs in the 1990s, there would have been very few large legacy C++ codebases.
C++ has staying power because there was a surge in its use in the 1990s and early 2000s. Some of those people are now senior managers, who approve C++.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
I think it won't be like assembly, because it takes more information vs building blocks that have more dense information in them, kind of like how we use libraries and frameworks
Yeah that's my thing for my hardware projects, I'm not going to reach for an LLM to do it, I want to write the code myself/be present. For something new I would consider using LLM to generate something, like a computer vision implementation or something I don't already know. The end result I would know how it works, just for POC.
For example, an occupied self-driving car better be closer to its destination than a large fire / volcano / etc.