Kite, a start-up that has been developing artificial intelligence technology to help developers write code for nearly a decade, is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code. Silicon Republic reports: Based in San Francisco, Kite was founded in 2014 as an early pioneer in the emerging field of AI that assists software developers in writing code — an ‘autocomplete’ for programming of sorts. But now, after eight years of pursuing its vision to be a leader in AI-assisted programming, founder Adam Smith announced on the company website that the business is now wrapping up. According to him, even state-of-the-art machine learning models today don’t understand the structure of code — and too few developers are willing to pay for available services. “We failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming because we were 10-plus years too early to market, ie, the tech is not ready yet,” Smith explained. “You can see this in GitHub Copilot, which is built by GitHub in collaboration with OpenAI. As of late 2022, Copilot shows a lot of promise but still has a long way to go.”

Copilot was first revealed in June 2021 as an AI assistant for programmers that essentially does for coding what predictive text does for writing emails. Developed in collaboration with OpenAI, GitHub had kept Copilot in technical preview until this summer, during which time it had been used by more than 1.2m developers. The AI was made available to all developers in June, at a cost of $10 a month or $100 a year. However, Smith said that the inadequacy of machine learning models in understanding the structure of code, such as non-local context, has been an insurmountable challenge for the Kite team. “We made some progress towards better models for code, but the problem is very engineering intensive. It may cost over $100m to build a production-quality tool capable of synthesizing code reliably, and nobody has tried that quite yet.”

While the business could have still been successful without necessarily increasing developer productivity by 10 times using AI, Smith said he thinks that Kite’s delay and unsuccessful attempt at monetizing the service prevented the start-up from taking flight. “We sequenced building our business in the following order: First we built our team, then the product, then distribution and then monetization,” he explained, adding that Kite did not reach product-market fit until 2019, five years after starting the company. Despite the time taken to get to the market, Smith said Kite was able to capture 500,000 monthly active developers using its AI with “almost zero marketing spend.” But the product failed to generate revenue because the developers refused to pay for it. Smith says most of their code has been open sourced on GitHub, including their “data-driven Python type inference engine, Python public-package analyzer, desktop software, editor integrations, GitHub crawler and analyzer, and more more.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – AI-Assisted Coding Start-Up Kite Is Saying Farewell and Open-Sourcing Its Code

An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a MIT Technology Review article, written by Zeyi Yang: It’s easier to talk about what China’s social credit system isn’t than what it is. Ever since 2014, when China announced a six-year plan to build a system to reward actions that build trust in society and penalize the opposite, it has been one of the most misunderstood things about China in Western discourse. Now, with new documents released in mid-November, there’s an opportunity to correct the record. For most people outside China, the words “social credit system” conjure up an instant image: a Black Mirror — esque web of technologies that automatically score all Chinese citizens according to what they did right and wrong. But the reality is, that terrifying system doesn’t exist, and the central government doesn’t seem to have much appetite to build it, either. Instead, the system that the central government has been slowly working on is a mix of attempts to regulate the financial credit industry, enable government agencies to share data with each other, and promote state-sanctioned moral values — however vague that last goal in particular sounds. There’s no evidence yet that this system has been abused for widespread social control (though it remains possible that it could be wielded to restrict individual rights).

While local governments have been much more ambitious with their innovative regulations, causing more controversies and public pushback, the countrywide social credit system will still take a long time to materialize. And China is now closer than ever to defining what that system will look like. On November 14, several top government agencies collectively released a draft law on the Establishment of the Social Credit System, the first attempt to systematically codify past experiments on social credit and, theoretically, guide future implementation. Yet the draft law still left observers with more questions than answers. […]

“This draft doesn’t reflect a major sea change at all,” says Jeremy Daum, a senior fellow of the Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center who has been tracking China’s social credit experiment for years. It’s not a meaningful shift in strategy or objective, he says. Rather, the law stays close to local rules that Chinese cities like Shanghai have released and enforced in recent years on things like data collection and punishment methods — just giving them a stamp of central approval. It also doesn’t answer lingering questions that scholars have about the limitations of local rules. “This is largely incorporating what has been out there, to the point where it doesn’t really add a whole lot of value,” Daum adds. So what is China’s current system actually like? Do people really have social credit scores? Is there any truth to the image of artificial-intelligence-powered social control that dominates Western imagination? The “social credit” term covers two different things, writes Yang: “traditional financial creditworthiness and ‘social creditworthiness,’ which draws data from a larger variety of sectors.” The former is a concept Westerners are familiar with as it essentially refers to documenting individuals’ or businesses’ financial history and predicting their ability to pay back future loans. The latter, which is what’s most controversial in the West, is the Chinese government’s attempt to hold entities accountable to fight corruption, telecom scams, tax evasion, academic plagiarism, and much more.

“The government seems to believe that all these problems are loosely tied to a lack of trust, and that building trust requires a one-size-fits-all solution,” writes Yang. “So just as financial credit scoring helps assess a person’s creditworthiness, it thinks, some form of ‘social credit’ can help people assess others’ trustworthiness in other respects.” It gets confusing though because the “social” credit scoring often gets lumped together with financial credit scoring in policy discussions, “even though it’s a much younger field with little precedent in other societies.” Local governments also occasionally mix up the two, further complicating the matter.

Has the government built a system that is actively regulating these two types of credit? How will a social credit system affect Chinese people’s everyday lives? So is there a centralized social credit score computed for every Chinese citizen? These are some of the questions Yang attempts to answer in the full article.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – China Announces New Social Credit Law

Lawyers for collapsed crypto exchange FTX said on Tuesday, in the company’s first bankruptcy hearing, that regulators from the Bahamas, where FTX was headquartered, have agreed to consolidate proceedings in Delaware. From a report: FTX’s lawyers, who were brought in by new leadership to handle restructuring, filed an emergency motion last week to secure the move to the U.S. The hearing on Tuesday was the initial step in the resolution of the largest cryptocurrency bankruptcy on record.

“What we are dealing with is a different sort of animal,” said FTX counsel James Bromley. “Unfortunately, the FTX debtors were not particularly well run, and that is an understatement.” Regarding FTX’s founder, this was an organization that was “effectively run as a personal fiefdom of Sam Bankman-Fried,” an FTX attorney told the court. […] Bankman-Fried exercised a level of control over the business that “none of us have ever seen,” Bromley said, referring to the bankruptcy experts and attorneys the company has employed as part of the restucturing process. “The FTX situation is the latest and the largest failure in this space,” Bromley said. “There was effectively a run on the bank, both with respect to the international exchange […] as well as the U.S. exchange. At the same time that the run on the bank was occurring, there was a leadership crisis […] The FTX companies were controlled by a very small group of people, led by Mr. Sam-Bankman-Fried. During the run on the bank, Mr. Fried’s leadership frayed, and that led to resignations.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Source: Slashdot – FTX Lawyer Calls the Case ‘Different Sort of Animal’ in First Bankruptcy Hearing