> Nothing to do with AI, or even the capabilities of AI. The person intentionally didn't put in much effort.

The part to do with AI is that it was not able to drive a comprehensive and bug free driver with minimal effort from the human.

That is the point.

Seems like they did put in quite a bit of effort, but were not knowledgeable enough on wifi drivers to go further.

So hardware drivers are not a solved problem where you can just ask chatgpt for a driver and it spits one out for you.

> The author specifically said that they did not read the code or even test the output very thoroughly. It was intentionally just a naive toy they wanted to play around with.

Yes and that's what I'm pointing out, they vibe coded it and the headline is somewhat misleading, although it's not the authors fault if you don't go read the article before commenting.

But it does have to do with AI (obviously), and specifically the capabilities of AI. If you need to be knowledgable about how wifi drivers work and put in effort to get a decent result, that obviously speaks volumes about the capabilities of the vibe coding approach.

> The person intentionally didn't put in much effort.

Aren't you just describing every vibe code ever?

To think about it, that is probably my main issue with AI art/books etc. They never put in any effort. In fact, even the competition is about putting least effort.

Not a huge fan of @sama, but he is quoted as saying: this is the worst these models will every be!

Puts all criticism in a new perspective.

>> Do you see any reason that progress will stop abruptly here?

I do. When someone thinks they are building next generation super software for 20$ a month using AI, they conveniently forget someone else is paying the remaining 19,980$ for them for compute power and electricity.

People abstract upon new leaps in invention way too early though. Believing these leaps are becoming the standard. Look at cars, airplanes, phones, etc.

After we landed on the moon people were hyped for casual space living within 50 years.

The reality is it often takes much much longer as invention isn't isolated to itself. It requires integration into the real world and all the complexities it meets.

Even moreso, we may have ai models that can do anything perfectly but it will require so much compute that only the richest of the rich are able to use it and it effectively won't exist for most people.

> Do you see any reason progress will stop abruptly here?

Yeah, money and energy. And fundamental limitations of LLM's. I mean, I'm obviously guessing as well because I'm not an expert, but it's a view shared by some of the biggest experts in the field ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I just don't really buy the idea that we're going to have near-infinite linear or exponential progress until we reach AGI. Reality rarely works like that.

Fairly high could - but some could start today some need a few months of study before they know how to start (and then take 10x long than the first person to get it working)