Yeah, there are some issues with that. Ars has a better article.
This is like a decade late. Engineering students at George Mason University, Viet Tran and Seth Robertson built a working prototype in 2015. I remember telling someone something like “In the future we will blasting fire out with heavy metal.”
deleted by creator
To be fair to whom? The journalists who’s job it is to research a story?
I don’t have an issue with a story about making a more effective version of the Sonic Fire Extinguisher. My issue is with the framing of this “ingenious” concept that only someone who worked at nasa could come up with. This isn’t journalism it is advertising and half truth.
deleted by creator
If you want to make new technology, it takes decades of development at a minimum. That means decades of funding for minuscule improvements that the vast majority of people don’t understand.
again this is not “new” and no it doesn’t have to take decades of development at a minimum. The first LLMs came out in 2018. Look where they are now.
How do you think they should get that funding?
Not by lying. I wouldn’t invest in a company that is dishonest about the history of development of their product. By ignoring the history of the technology they undermining the trustworthiness of the company.
deleted by creator
2018 and eight years with more funding then almost any technology in history I’m just now seeing semi effective integration with text editors,
How is that is decades? If you are only seeing “integration with text editors” you aren’t using the internet very much.
And I don’t know what the rest of your rambling is about. The point I am making still stands. The article is dishonest by ignoring the ground breaking work of a decade ago and pretending some tweaks and commercial application is “innovation.”
